By
James DeGiulio —

Recently,
we reported that a research team led by Dr. Craig Venter had developed a "synthetic
cell" controlled by purely synthetic DNA (see "Dr. Craig Venter Creates
First Cell Controlled Entirely by Synthetic DNA").  To evaluate the significance of the
discovery, the journal Nature
asked eight synthetic-biology experts about the implications
for science and society of the "synthetic cell" made by the Dr.
Venter's research team ("Life after the synthetic cell").  Generally, most commentators downplayed
the gravity of Dr. Venter's discovery, most finding the synthetic cell as
falling short of "artificial life."  The following is a summary of each expert's commentary, to
illustrate the variety of reactions to Dr. Venter's synthetic cell:

• Dr. Mark Bedau,
professor of philosophy and humanities at Reed College in Oregon, noted
four issues to keep in mind when forming opinions on Venter's discovery.  First, we now have an
unprecedented opportunity to learn about life.  Second, even the simplest forms
of life have unpredictable, emergent properties.  Third, these new powers create
new responsibilities, since we cannot be sure about the consequences of making
new forms of life, and we must "expect the unexpected and the unintended."  Finally, Dr. Bedau notes that we are moving ever-closer to creating life.  Dr. Bedau also notes "a prosthetic genome
hastens the day when life forms can be made entirely from nonliving materials."

• Dr. George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical
School, is of the view that no artificial life was created.  Dr. Church notes that the new bacterium is not
changed from the wild-type state in any fundamental sense.  Dr. Church relies on the
metaphor that "[p]rinting out a copy of an ancient text isn't the same as
understanding the language."  He notes that geneticists already had the
ability to make synthetic DNA and get it to function in cells, and that Venter's
discovery was exercising that ability on a grander scale.  Dr. Church was interested, however, in the
research potential of trimming down genomes, as Dr. Venter did, in order to understand
what elements of the genome are essential for speed, efficiency, and robustness.

• Dr. Steen Rasmussen, a professor of physics at the University of Southern Denmark,
disputes even calling the discovery a "synthetic cell" because
Dr. Venter has only rewritten the genetics "program" running
on the "hardware" of the modern cell.  Dr. Rasmussen contrasts the "top-down"
approach, which Dr. Venter's discovery represents, and "bottom-up"
approaches, which Dr. Rasmussen practices.  According to Dr. Rasmussen, a true synthetic
cell can only be created using the "bottom-up" approach, which aims
to "assemble life — including the hardware and the program — as simply as
possible, even if the result is different from what we think of as life."

• Dr. Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, stands
out from the other commentators by ruling the magnitude of Dr. Venter's discovery
as immense, declaring it as "one of the most important
scientific achievements in the history of mankind."  Dr. Caplan's commentary is more
philosophical than scientific, describing the achievement as undermining a
fundamental belief about the nature of life — that no manipulations of the
inorganic would permit the creation of any living thing.  Dr. Caplan fears Dr. Venter's achievement would
seem to "extinguish the argument that life requires a special force or
power to exist."

• Dr. Steven Benner, of the Foundation for Applied
Molecular Evolution, viewed the magnitude of the discovery as mere "synthesis" — a research strategy that can be applied to any field in which technology
allows scientists to design new subject matter.  Dr. Benner finds the discovery analogous to chemical synthesis.  Nonetheless, Dr. Benner was impressed
with the discovery, rejecting it as a trivial enhancement of previous gene
synthesis.  Dr. Benner also noted the
potential to resurrect species of ancient bacteria, so that evolutionary
sciences, among others, may benefit from the work.

• Dr. Martin Fussenegger, a professor of biotechnology
and bioengineering at ETH Zurich, finds that Dr. Venter's discovery is a "technical
tour-de-force," but not much of a conceptual advance.  Indeed,
chimera organisms have long been created through breeding and through the
transfer of native genomes into denucleated target cells.  Dr. Fussenegger does note, however, that
this latest technology will increase the speed with which new organisms can be
generated, a thought that he acknowledges as "discomforting."

• Dr. Jim Collins, professor of biomedical engineering
at Boston University, echoes the commentary downplaying the advancement as
revolutionary.  His view is that Dr. Venter has made an
important advance in our ability to re-engineer organisms, yet it does not
represent the making of new life from scratch.  Dr. Collins finds Dr. Venter's
microorganism to be analogous to a patient who has received an artificial,
synthetic heart.  Dr. Collins admits that scientists simply do not know enough about
biology to create life.  He states:  "It is like trying to assemble an operational jumbo jet from its
parts list — impossible."

• Dr. David Deamer,
professor of biomolecular engineering at University of California, Santa
Cruz, also states that Dr. Venter has not created artificial life, noting that the
cytoplasm of the recipient cell, among other things, is not synthetic.  However,
Dr. Deamer is encouraged that the discovery has the potential for
understanding the "origin of life" as we know it.  Dr. Deamer notes that currently "all
life arises from existing life.  But perhaps not for much longer."

As
can be seen, it appears generally that Dr. Venter's discovery is not going to
incite the bioethical pushback it potentially could have, for most scientists
surveyed in the Nature article have
recognized that DR. Venter has not actually "created" life.  Fortunately, the popular media has also
noted this distinction.  In a May 30th New York Times editorial entitled "One Cell Forward,"
Dr. Venter's discovery of a "synthetic cell" was lauded as "overstated,"
because it "makes it sound as though [Dr.] Venter had constructed the
entire cell, molecule by molecule.  What he has done is create a synthetic
genome — the longest string of DNA to be assembled in a laboratory — and place
it in a bacterium."  Nonetheless, the editorial recognizes that Dr. Venter's discovery is another
step closer to artificial life, albeit not as large of a step as claimed, and
recognizes that "[t]his newest step in [D]r. Venter's research brings a
fresh urgency to the debate — and the need for some profound decisions."

Patent Docs will continue to update
our readers on the debate and decisions regarding Dr. Venter's "synthetic
cell" technology.

For additional information
regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "Venter Denies Synthetic Cell Discovery Is Artificial Life, Vatican Agrees," June 6, 2010
• "Dr. Craig Venter Creates First Cell Controlled Entirely by Synthetic DNA," June 1, 2010
• "Playing
the Bioterror Card in the Synthetic Biology Debate," December 19,
2007
• "The
Synthetic Biology Sky Is Not Falling," December 16, 2007
• "Patenting
Life (Really)," June 11, 2007

James
DeGiulio has a doctorate in molecular biology and genetics from
Northwestern University and is a third-year law
student at the Northwestern University School of Law.  Dr. DeGiulio
was a member of MBHB's 2009 class of summer associates, and he can be
contacted at degiulio@mbhb.com.