Which are your personal concerns about safety in synthetic biology? To what extent have scientists to think about biosafety?

To answer this in detail we will have to wait into which direction research develops and which fields of application are exploited. But broadly speaking the high intrusion depth of synthetic biology into the genomes of organisms poses new safety questions.

Why does especially synthetic biology evoke the necessity to address biosafety questions in addition to the ongoing genetic engineering -safety-debate?

This is something which correlates with the depth of intrusion. This means the distance to the original organism is even bigger in synbio than in genetic engineering (größer als wir das von der gentechnik kennen). In genetic engineering there is always the an organism which can be compared (vergleichsorganismus) which is known very well so that it is possible to say the genetically engineered version of this organism will behave in the same ways and only differ in in some minor respects. But when synthetic biology has the realistic vision of a whole new genome being redesigned (am reißbrett entwerfen) and inserted into a bacterial cell the question arises how we can evaluate how this organisms will behave and develop. Here we are lacking reference values and that is a difference to conventional genetic engineering. This is a new level in the respect of biosafety questions.

Often hypothetical scenarios are constructed and used to elucidate safety questions. Can this debate satisfy the reality of research?

When specific research projects are evaluated the general prospect of replacing a whole genome can be neglected, as it is not relevant or doesn’t have to be relevant. The assessment of definite research projects is really depending on details and in the case of doubt there are already many standards (Rahmen und vorgaben) and percepts which can be applied to address safety. But there are also research projects which are uncritical in terms of safety questions. Nevertheless it is important to keep an eye on future developments in research. Here also scientists have to be aware of safety questions that may arise not only from what they are doing right now but also regarding future steps of their research. This is a gradual process but we have to be always one step ahead of what currently happens.

Do you have specific recommendations what can be done to raise the acceptance of synthetic Biology or to close the gap between hypothetical scenarios and actual research?

On the one hand the acceptance in the population and concerning ethics is really depending on the field of application. When the application belongs to the fled of health and medicine there is great acceptance because there is doubt that it will be a beneficial application. Moreover many rules for clinical studies already exist which serve here as safety regulations. On the other hand there is poor acceptance for application in the field of agro- and plant biotechnology. Here is the question if we should refrain from planting organisms in the free nature (freie natur?!) or if we should concentrate on promoting “contained uses”. This again demands a gradual course of action in which we will have time to learn and understand. We are not supposed to take big steps (einen großen sprung Machen) but to first explore the application closely under known conditions. Synthetic biology tends to take big steps (große sprünge Machen) but this not advisable in terms of safety issues.

Could you explain how terms like “living machine” may affect safety questions or acceptance of synthetic biology?

splate2

splate1

splate2