Beyond evolution

The idea of breathing life into inanimate matter has been an enduring theme in fiction for centuries. Now it is fact as well. Scientists led by Craig Venter, the US genomes pioneer, have succeeded in turning chemicals into a living organism.

The achievement, though the culmination of 15 years’ work and $40m of spending, is just the beginning. The further prize is the ability to design organisms that do not exist in nature but could be hugely beneficial. Attention is focusing on synthetic algae to capture carbon dioxide from the air and produce hydrocarbon fuels. Synthetic cells could be transformative in healthcare too, providing drugs inaccessible through conventional science.

Inevitably, critics have been quick to suggest that scientists have once again been “playing God”. In truth, however, designing microbes that could provide new vaccines or clean up pollution does not raise the same ethical issues as work on human genetic material. The more relevant ethical issue is how to ensure that the longer-term prospect of such marvellous aids does not become a substitute for better behaviour now.

As with the advances in molecular biology in the 1970s, fears are being voiced about the darker side of this discovery. They include unfair commercial exploitation and the escape of synthetic cells from the laboratory, either through accident or taken for use as a terrorist threat.

The first of these worries echoes concerns that DNA patenting might unduly inhibit further research and development. Yet in that instance the anxiety was broadly unfounded. In this case, there are competing teams of scientists working on ways to design and write DNA: no one laboratory has a monopoly.

The second point is more substantial. There is certainly a need to make sure that artificial superbugs are not unleashed on an unsuspecting world. This is better done by expanding the remit of existing global and national regulators, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, than by a separate regulatory apparatus.

In all of this, it is vital that scientists can bring public opinion with them, by leading the debate and explaining the possible risks and rewards. This should help to avoid unnecessarily stifling regulation and to pave the way for general acceptance of the advantages that could be available. Legitimate concerns about the risks of synthetic life should not overshadow the great opportunities that this landmark advance represents.