by DREW ANDY
Can the reengineering of biology be coupled to the spread of tools and knowledge sufficient to improve the health of people and the environment worldwide? We believe the answer is yes, albeit with much work to be accomplished both technically and culturally. Practically, a comprehensive overhaul of the process by which living systems are engineered is needed. Legal, political, and cultural innovations are also required to collectively insure that the resulting knowledge and tools are freely availably to those who would use them constructively.
We do not know how to make biology easy to engineer (think playing with Legos or coding software with Java). However, technical inventions prototyped over the past six years point the way to a future in which biology is much easier to engineer relative to today. For example, in the summer of 2009, a team of undergraduates at the University of Cambridge won the International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition by engineering seven strains of E. coli, each capable of synthesizing a different pigment visible to the naked eye. The resulting set, collectively known as E. chromi, required rerouting the metabolism of the bacteria so that natural precursor chemicals are converted across a palette of seven colors, from red to purple; such genetic color generators can be used to program microbes to change color in response to otherwise invisible environmental pollutants or health conditions. A few years ago such a project would have required several PhD-level experts in biology and metabolic engineering and would have likely taken a few years. Today, undergraduates can perform such work in months. This change in reality is due to two advances—tools and sharing—both of which are ready for their own revolutions.
The Cambridge iGEM students benefited from a preexisting collection of free-to-use standard biological parts, collectively known as the BioBricks collection. This collection of standardized DNA, although still incredibly immature, represents a radical advance in the underlying technology and cultural framing of biotechnology. For example, the enzymes needed to produce the red and orange pigments were available via a DNA kit that the students received at the start of their project. And, in completing their project the students gave back new DNA—created via advanced gene synthesis tools—encoding enzymes that produce brown, violet, light and dark green, and blue pigments, so that others who follow can readily make use of these additional materials. The students’ “give and get” and “standard biological parts” philosophy stands in stark contrast to current biotechnology practice, which depends upon an ad hoc genetic artistry and is dominated by hoarding of both materials and property rights.
Seed for more