Synthetic Life Is Cool - But Scary

I know many people are worried about the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting happening later this week – I am too – but from a longer term perspective there’s another meeting happening this week that we should also be paying attention to: the Engineering and Safeguarding Synthetic Life conference, in Manchester (U.K.). It is aimed at bringing together “scientists, engineers, ethicists, policymakers, and other stakeholders to explore the challenges and opportunities of building and regulating synthetic life.”   

Mirror image synthetic life isn't going to be quite that easy. Credit: Ting Zhu Lab

The conference has four sessions:

• Session 1 – Synthetic Cells: Advances in the creation of minimal and fully synthetic cells, highlighting new technologies and design principles.
• Session 2 – Synthetic Genomes: Cutting-edge progress in genome synthesis and engineering, including applications and long-term visions.
• Session 3 – Safeguarding Synthetic Life: Addressing safety, ethics, and science diplomacy, with a focus on responsible innovation and governance, including for mirror cells.
• Session 4 – Recombining Emerging Technologies: Examining how synthetic biology converges with fields such as AI, robotics, and materials science to enable new capabilities.

These aren’t sessions speculating about long range futures; these are sessions led by leading scientists talking about current work, in hopes of creating informed discussion about what more of us should be thinking about. The future is almost here.

It has a companion program -- Japan-UK Engineering Biology Meeting -- that follows, and in December in the U.S. the National Academy of Science will host a workshop Mirror Image Biology: Pushing the Envelope in Designing Biological Systems, “focusing on the state of the science, trends in research and development, risks and benefits of this research, and considerations relating for future governance of relevant enabling technologies.”

Serious people are taking this seriously.

Devoted readers may recall that three months ago I wrote about the Synthetic Human Genome Project, the goal of which is “to provide proof of concept for large genome synthesis by creating a fully synthetic human chromosome.” Or they may remember when I wrote last December about a technical report warning about the potential benefits and risks of so-called “mirror life,” whose DNA has the opposite chirality of all existing DNA.

Then, just two months ago, researchers from MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology announced they had modified an E. Coli to have only 57 codons, versus the 64 that essentially all DNA organisms have.  They call it Syn57, and Wesley Robertson, one of the authors, told Carl Zimmer of The New York Times: “Life still works…This reveals that there is nothing fundamental about the universal genetic code.”

We’re tinkering with the basics of life itself. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Credit: MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Mirror life is one of the areas that continues to draw attention. Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist at the University of Minnesota, warned Mark Peplow of Nature: “There is no benefit of mirror biology that couldn’t be achieved other ways with normal biology. That’s not a risk I think we should be taking.” Dr. Adamala is chairing Session 1 of this week’s conference.  She was also one of the scientists who issued the Technical Report n mirror life last December; she knows of which she speaks, and she’s worried.

Not everyone is as worried. “Given all of the other ways in which technology is upending society right now, it’s a little surprising that this has gotten as much attention as it has,” David Van Valen, a bioengineer at the California Institute of Technology, told Mr. Peplow. “I think most of the concerns that people are raising are overblown.”

One of the leaders in the field, Ting Zhu at Westlake University in Hangzhou, China, is not attending this week’s conference but did author a companion piece to Mr. Peplow’s, Mirror of the unknown: should research on mirror-image molecular biology be stopped? Dr. Zhu takes the high road: “But in the face of vast unknowns, the noble path of pre-emptively protecting humanity from potential risks in the distant future can be slippery. And we should tread cautiously.”

Still, he points out:

Research in mirror-image molecular biology is still in its infancy. But scientists working in this field have been humbled by the tremendous challenges of exploring this unknown world ^5–14. The creation of mirror-image organisms, if it ever became feasible, would face monumental conceptual and technical barriers.

He adds that it took his team almost four years to construct a mirror image protein fragment of about 470 amino acids – the longest yet but still just a fragment. They’ve been working on a mirror image ribosome for almost ten years, “and are still years away from achieving it.”

According:

In short, it is crucial to distinguish mirror-image molecular biology from the creation of mirror-image organisms. A self-replicating cell has molecular diversity, metabolic complexity and structural intricacy that are orders of magnitude greater than what’s found in any currently synthesizable biomolecular system. And the creation of a mirror-image organism lies well beyond the reach of present-day science.

Dr. Zhu does think there are “endless possibilities” with mirror image molecules, such as more effective drugs, enzymes that could degrade plastics, even more robust data storage capabilities than natural DNA. It is important, he argues, that we don’t put a moratorium on the field, but he does agree with the purpose of this week’s conference, “establishing ethical boundaries would be to comprehensively assess near-term challenges and long-term risks across multiple disciplines.”

If one is cynical about China following such ethical guidelines, Dr. Adamala is not, at least when it comes to Dr. Zhu, telling Mr. Peplow: “He’s said he’s not going to build a living mirror cell, and that’s good enough for me,”

Well, maybe.

I’d be remiss if I failed to note that DARPA has just announced a Smart-Red Blood Cells (Smart-RBC) initiative, aiming “to engineer red blood cells to contain novel biological features that can safely and reliably modify human physiology.” It wants to identify “the art of-the-possible to create SRBCs to enhance human performance in austere environments and maximize survival via hemostasis products,” but also “unlock future capabilities including, but not limited to, improving thermal regulation in extreme environments, creating universal blood, accelerating acclimation to high altitudes, generating more resilient blood products.”

And you were worried about mirror image organisms.

Credit: Darpa

In some ways, this is very much like what is happening with artificial intelligence, only with much less money and much less attention. Both synthetic biology and AI could revolutionize our society and bring untold benefits, or they could conceivably lead to destruction of all life on earth. The trouble is, nobody really knows which will actually happen.