[-empyre-] Synthusiasts

Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com> · Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:40:03 -0500

“This report is a partial consideration of governance by a partisan  
group of authors,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “Its authors are  
‘Synthusiasts’ – or, unabashed synthetic biology boosters – who are  
primarily concerned about holding down costs and regulatory burdens  
that could allegedly stymie the rapid development of the new  
industry. By focusing narrowly on safety and security in a U.S.- 
centric context, the report conveniently overlooks important  
questions related to power, control and the economic impacts of  
synthetic biology. The authors have ignored the first and most basic  
questions: Is synthetic biology socially acceptable or desirable? Who  
should decide? Who will control the technology, and what are its  
potential impacts?”
Begin forwarded message:

Syns of Omission:

Civil Society Organizations Respond to Report on Synthetic Biology  
Governance from the J. Craig Venter Institute and Alfred P. Sloan  
Foundation
A report released today on policy options for governance of  
synthetic biology is a disappointing effort that fails to address  
wider societal concerns about the rapid deployment of a powerful  
and controversial new technology. Synthetic biology aims to  
commercialize new biological parts, devices and living organisms  
that are constructed from synthetic DNA – including dangerous  
pathogens. Synthetic biologists are attempting to harness cells as  
tiny factories for industrial production of chemicals, including  
pharmaceuticals and fuels. ETC Group describes the synthetic  
biology approach as “extreme genetic engineering.”
The report, authored by scientists and employees from the J. Craig  
Venter Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and  
the Center for Strategic & International Studies (Washington, D.C.)  
was funded by a half-million dollar grant from the U.S.-based  
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and billed as a “project to examine the  
societal implications of synthetic genomics.” The study was more  
than two years in the making, but the report makes no policy  
recommendations and failed to properly consult civil society. While  
the authors do acknowledge possible bio-error (i.e., synbio  
accidents that cause unintended harm to human health and the  
environment), the emphasis is on how to impede bioterrorists “in a  
post-September 11 world.”
“This report is a partial consideration of governance by a partisan  
group of authors,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “Its authors  
are ‘Synthusiasts’ – or, unabashed synthetic biology boosters – who  
are primarily concerned about holding down costs and regulatory  
burdens that could allegedly stymie the rapid development of the  
new industry. By focusing narrowly on safety and security in a U.S.- 
centric context, the report conveniently overlooks important  
questions related to power, control and the economic impacts of  
synthetic biology. The authors have ignored the first and most  
basic questions: Is synthetic biology socially acceptable or  
desirable? Who should decide? Who will control the technology, and  
what are its potential impacts?”
The report’s authors include representatives from institutions that  
have a vested interest in commercialization of synthetic biology.  
According to the J. Craig Venter Institute, one of the three  
institutions that led the study, scientists are just weeks or  
months away from announcing the creation of the world’s first-ever  
living bacterium with entirely synthetic DNA and a novel genome.  
Scientists from the Venter Institute have already applied for  
patents on the artificial microbe, and Craig Venter predicts that  
it could be the first billion or trillion dollar organism. The  
report fails to address issues of ownership, monopoly practices or  
intellectual property claims arising from synthetic biology.
“The sixty-page report has oodles of input from a small circle of  
scientists and policy ‘experts,’ but the 20-month long study fails  
to incorporate views of civil society and social movements,” points  
out Hope Shand, ETC Group’s Research Director. “An insular process  
like the one that produced the Sloan report instills little  
confidence in the results.”
The economic and technical barriers to synthetic genomics are  
collapsing. Using a laptop computer, published gene sequence  
information and mail-order synthetic DNA, it is becoming routine to  
construct genes or entire genomes from scratch – including those of  
lethal pathogens. The tools for DNA synthesis technologies are  
advancing at break-neck pace – they’re becoming cheaper, faster and  
widely accessible. The authors acknowledge this reality, and  
evaluate several options for addressing it.
One proposal aimed at “legitimate users” of the technology – those  
working in industry labs, for example – is to broaden the  
responsibilities of Institutional Biosafety Committees, which were  
established (in the US) to assess the biosafety and environmental  
risks of proposed recombinant DNA experiments.
Edward Hammond, Director of the Sunshine Project, a biotech and  
bioweapons watchdog, argues, “Institutional Biosafety Committees  
are a documented disaster. IBCs aren’t up to their existing task of  
overseeing genetic engineering research, much less ready to absorb  
new synthetic biology and security mandates. The authors of this  
report are aware of the abject failure of voluntary compliance by  
IBCs, including by the Venter Institute’s own IBC. So it is very  
difficult to interpret their suggestion that IBCs oversee synthetic  
biology as anything but a cynical attempt to avoid effective  
governance.”
Options for governing synthetic biology must not be set by the  
synthetic biologists themselves – broad societal debate on synbio’s  
wider implications must come first. Synthetic microbes should be  
treated as dangerous until proven harmless and strong democratic  
oversight should be mandatory – not optional. Earlier this year the  
ETC Group recommended a ban on environmental release of de novo  
synthetic organisms until wide societal debate and strong  
governance are in place.
ETC and other civil society organizations have called repeatedly  
for an inclusive, wide ranging public dialogue process on societal  
implications and oversight options for Synthetic Biology.
The full text of “Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance” is  
available here: http://www.jcvi.org/
ETC Group’s January 2007 report on synthetic biology, Extreme  
Genetic Engineering, is available here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/ 
materials/publications.html?pub_id=602
Backgrounder: Open Letter on Synthetic Biology from Civil Society,  
May 2006:

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=11