Team:TU Delft-Leiden/Human Practices/Outlook

Synthetic Biology Outlook

During the course of our iGEM project, we have actively been involved in the discussion around synthetic biology. Not only did we conduct research, we also spoke to many stakeholders and have thought about the implementation of a commercial application of synthetic biology. In this, we encountered some pressing issues, some of them global, but most of them on a national level. In our opinion, we, as an iGEM team, are in a good position to come up with possible solutions. This position comes from the fact that we are relative newcomers to synthetic biology, with a fresh look. Besides that, we are not tied to any organization or commercial interests. In this, we will identify what we perceive as the main issues with synthetic biology in The Netherlands, and we will propose possible solutions.

Issues

One of the main problems we have noted during our iGEM project is that, although a lot of synbio research is done, non of the inventions are developed into applications that benefit the general public. This effect is especially pronounced in The Netherlands: Dutch biotech company DSM does most of their synbio R&D in the Netherlands, but for their applications, such as Project Liberty [1], they have to diverge to the United States.

The main reason for this is the very strict legislature concerning synthetic biology in the Netherlands.[2][3] The laws are of a very negative nature: “you can’t do this, unless…” instead of “you can do this, except…” which is more the spirit of non-European law. Although safety is a big issue and it is respectable and understandable that synbio projects are under careful consideration, the consequence of this is that synthetic biology research, especially for commercial development, is hampered and that the Netherlands have a weak competitive position with respect to for example the US.

The underlying cause for this is the very negative public perception of synthetic biology in the Netherlands. At least partly due to lobbying efforts of some environmentalist organizations, synthetic biology and terms like GMO are considered something “scary”. This public opinion has had a profound influence on lawmakers, resulting in the very restrictive legislation mentioned before. Besides strict laws, this negative opinion has also resulted in companies being reluctant to invest in synthetic biology.

As a result of this, synthetic biology applications are extremely scarce. Therefore, synbio is still unknown to the common man. Following the saying “unknown, unloved”, this only increases the fear people feel for synthetic biology: the negative public opinion becomes even more negative. As a consequence of this, laws will be even stricter and companies will be more reluctant to invest. For the future of synthetic biology, it is essential that this vicious circle gets broken.

Solution

To break this vicious circle, it is of paramount importance to make the development of consumer applications of synthetic biology possible. A successful application of synthetic biology will change the public perception in two ways: Firstly, if a consumer product presumably has a clear benefit, in contrast to the rather abstract scientific benefits synbio currently offers. Secondly, when people actually use synthetic biology, it will get a lot less “scary”.

To make such an application possible, it is crucial that science and business work closer together then they do now. To achieve this, bringing actively together the different stakeholders is a good option. The format of such a collaboration platform should be worked out more, as well as who should take initiative: this could come from science, business or a third party like a NGO or politics. A bonus advantage of this would be that it brings scientist and possible investors together, which could result in more money for synbio research.

Another crucial change is needed in order to break the vicious circle: current Dutch legislature needs to change. There should be an opportunity to do pilot projects under certain conditions. This shouldn’t have to go at the expense of safety: a strict procedure in order to obtain permission for such a pilot is therefore necessary. Although legislature would still be strict in this way, the legal attitude towards synbio would be fundamentally different: instead of “it is not possible” it would be “it is possible, if…”.

The assessment of the pilot projects should not only be based on safety, but also on possible benefits: a synbio application that cures ebola should be granted permission earlier than an application which solves a minor problem. Applications that solve major problems will be more likely to be accepted by the public as well: the benefits will way up against the (perceived) disadvantages of synbio. This statement is corroborated by our experiences when discussing the ELECTRACE system to detect landmines: both Suzanne Oosterwijk from PAX and Justin Brady of NPA mentioned that to them, it didn’t matter that our application used synthetic biology, as long as it is able to help people. Brady: “If we can get a tool that can help people ( …) personally I don’t foresee any principle objections from the community at all.”

When the measures proposed above have been taken, this will hopefully result in the introduction of a couple of clearly beneficial applications. This would be the perfect moment to try to improve the public perception of synthetic biology. Using the new applications as fine examples, efforts to change the public perception should be taken. The money to pay for this could come from the platform organization in which scientists and companies collaborate.

To summarize, the following steps need to be taken in order to make synthetic biology succeed in The Netherlands: Firstly, scientists and companies should be brought together in order to make synbio development more application-driven. Secondly, Dutch legislature should be changed in order to make specifically accepted pilot projects possible. Thirdly, these pilot projects should be part of a greater effort to change public perception of synthetic biology.  

References

[1] http://www.poetdsm.com/liberty (accessed on 8-10-2014)

[2] Besluit genetisch gemodificeerde organismen milieubeheer (http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004703/geldigheidsdatum_30-09-2014#3) accessed on 30-9-2014

[3] Regeling genetisch gemodificeerde organismen (http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009653/Opschrift/geldigheidsdatum_30-09-2014) accessed on 30-9-2014