From Frankenstein’s monster through I, Robot to the lost young cyborg of
Steven Spielberg’s AI, the idea of creating artificial life from inert
matter has long inspired human imagination.
Last week that thrilling but unsettling goal appeared to have come a step
closer with the announcement by Craig Venter, the maverick scientist, that
his laboratory had constructed the world’s first completely synthetic
genome.
He described how he had used laboratory chemicals to recreate an almost exact
copy of the genetic material found inside a tiny bacterium - and was now
attempting to slot it into an empty cell in the hope of creating a new life
form.
For the layman, he compared his work with the building of a computer. His
breakthrough was the equivalent of creating the software for a computer’s
operating system. Now what he had to do was insert it into the computer
itself - the empty cell - and “boot it up”.
What’s more, he announced, he was already working on the next stage of his
great project. He would build an entirely synthetic organism, which he would
then use to save the world from global warming.
For Venter, the showman of the world of science, the result could hardly have
been better. Details of the breakthrough went around the world generating
positive headlines. The prospect that a painless way of solving the problems
of climate change might have been found was particularly attractive.
As the fuss dies down, however, questions remain. Has Venter really come close
to creating a new life form? Will the benefits really be so powerful and
clear cut? What might the acquisition of such godlike powers actually mean
for humanity?
VENTER himself has long been a man of supreme immodesty. Since the 1990s he
has scorched his way through the burgeoning science of genomics, leaving a
trail of enemies in his path as he set about mapping the human genome.
The feelings he provokes are so intense that one profile in The New Yorker
magazine from 2000 began with a quote from a string of fellow scientists,
saying: “Craig Venter is an asshole. He’s an idiot. He is a thorn in
people’s sides and an egomaniac.”
Venter’s first breakthrough was in developing what is now known as shotgun
sequencing, a method for analysing the human genome faster and more cheaply
than ever before.
At the time, however, it was unproven and too risky for the government-funded
institution where he worked so, after many rows, Venter left and raised the
money himself.
An instinctive entrepreneur, he might have expected to feel more at home
mixing with fast moving risk-takers like himself, but instead the rows
became even more intense. His first business partnership collapsed and his
relationship with Celera Genomics, with whom he completed the genome, also
proved tempestuous.
Even the publication of the genome itself proved controversial. Fearing that
Venter would patent the genome and charge for access, a consortium of
scientists launched their own publicly funded rival effort.
The race became so bitter that Bill Clinton, then US president, had to step in
to negotiate a truce, with both teams agreeing to publish their findings
simultaneously in 2001.
It was supposed to mark the end of hostilities but when Venter held a party
his fellow scientists boycotted the event, leaving Venter glowering over a
near-empty dance floor.
Soon after he was sacked by Celera. Insiders made clear the firm could no
longer sustain such a huge ego.
Again Venter bounced back, using his £100m share of Celera’s stock to found
the J Craig Venter Institute. It now has more than 400 scientists and staff
based in Rockville, Maryland, and La Jolla, California. For Venter, however,
perhaps its most priceless asset is that he controls it.
The years since then have seen Venter repeatedly in the headlines. Last June
he announced success in transplanting the entire genome of one bacterium
into another, effectively causing the recipient to change species.
Then, in September, he published his own genome, the first time any individual
person’s DNA had been sequenced. It was perhaps a mixed blessing, revealing
that Venter is at risk of Alzheimer’s, diabetes and hereditary eye disease.
For scientists the benefits of his institute’s synthetic genome are, however,
much clearer. Although they have long been able to make synthetic DNA they
have only been able to produce it in short lengths. This is because the
chemical “bases” that make up the building blocks of DNA – adenine,
thy-mine, cytosine and guanine – are very difficult to work with.
DNA chains are built from pairs of these bases all linked together to form the
familiar “twisted ladder” shape. In the test tube, however, the chains
become increasingly brittle the longer they get. This means that the largest
synthesised DNA chain contained only 32,000 base pairs until now.
Dr Jim Haseloff, a Cambridge University expert in synthetic biology said: “The
true breakthrough here is that Venter has built a DNA sequence containing
583,000 base pairs. There is a very good chance that if he can transplant it
into a bacterial cell it will start working.”
This event may be far closer even than Venter is saying. The paper published
last week was actually written five months ago, since when it has been
undergoing peer review by other researchers. In that time the research has
intensified.
Dan Gibson, who led the research, and Hamilton Smith, the Nobel prize-winning
biologist who worked with him, said: “We are now working towards the
ultimate goal of inserting a synthetic chromosome into a cell and booting it
up to create the first synthetic organism.”
What it means is that pretty soon we are likely to see the first truly
synthetic microbes – and that will be sure to spark fierce debate. Some will
accuse Venter of playing God. Others will raise fears of new bioweap-ons.
The simple question is: just what will humanity be able to do with this new
technology? ONE thing that is clear is that there is no chance of Venter’s
techniques being applied to create synthetic human genomes. Or indeed of it
leading to the halting of the human ageing process, as some scientists have
speculated.
Mycoplasma genitalium, the bacterium on which Venter’s team worked, was chosen
purely because it has a relatively tiny genome. Most bacteria have far more
– typically up to 10m base pairs long, while fungi have around 38m and
plants 115m. Mammals are thousands of times more complex again with humans
having around 3 billion base pairs.
Professor Paul Freemont, head of molecular biosciences at Imperial College,
London, said: “There are just 485 genes in Mycoplasma, while humans have
20,000. It is science fiction to think Venter’s work could give scientists
control of the human genome.”
There are, however, many other possibilities, some of which were set out by
Venter himself in a telling article published last autumn. He described how,
in 2003, his team had synthesised the first artificial genome, of an obscure
virus called phi-X174.
As news of the breakthrough got out, he was invited to a meeting with John
Marburger, the president’s chief scientific adviser. Venter said: “We told
him now we had achieved this goal, we could begin to move to creating new
types of microorganisms that could be used in numerous ways, as green fuels
to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb greenhouse gases.”
Alongside these attractive benefits, Venter also set out a more sinister
possibility. “We could now probably also syn-thesise any virus with a
genetic code of fewer than 10,000 ‘letters’ of DNA in under a week in the
lab, and larger viruses such as the Marburg or Ebola virus [both very
unpleasant] in a month or so.”
For Marburger the implications were clear and, soon after, Venter’s research
was put under scrutiny by the National Science Advisory Board for
Biosecurity which oversees research deemed potentially dangerous.
In public, however, little was said about such fears. Perhaps the only clue
came at a press conference when Hamilton Smith blurted out: “We could make
the smallpox genome.” Venter later spoke of his relief when only one
reporter repeated Smith’s reference to the “possibility of making deadly
pathogens”.
It is a worry that plays on people’s minds. Literature and films are littered
with the human race being imperilled by biological innovations that have
spiralled out of control. Such fears will never go away. Synthetic biology
is after all a powerful technology and, just like genetic modification,
crossbreeding and every other method for altering the genetic make-up of
other living things, can be used for good or evil.
For now, however, the biggest barrier for making any use of such techniques at
all lies in our limited understanding of how DNA works.
The researchers who praise Venter’s breakthrough also warn that predicting how
a given sequence of synthetic DNA will actually perform is a far harder
task.
Jason Chin, who leads a synthetic biology research group in Cambridge, said:
“DNA communicates with a cell by prompting it to make proteins, but we have
a long way to go in understanding the relationship between a given DNA
sequence, the proteins it generates and the final properties of an organism.”
So, for now at least, scientists will be limited to producing synthetic
versions of DNA sequences found in nature and tinkering with them.
When will we see the benefits? The history of biotechnology is littered with
other reminders that we may have to wait a long time. Stem cells, gene
therapy and cloning were all great scientific discoveries but the practical
benefits are taking much longer to emerge.
Venter’s ecological claims for his breakthrough have been greeted with
cautious optimism by his peers. But they note that there would be
significant regulatory hurdles surrounding the release of a new organism
into the environment to overcome. The benefits would most likely not been
seen within a decade.
For Venter, however, such cautionary notes are simply a challenge. His vision,
he told Newsweek magazine last year, is of creating the first
“trillion-dollar organisms” - patented bugs that could excrete bio-fuels,
generate clean energy in the form of hydrogen and even produce tailor-made
foods.
It is a startling vision of a brave new world, but it also sounds like a world
that would be largely controlled by J Craig Venter.
We always here about what global warming might do 50 or 100 years from now, but so little about the germs that bio-scientists could make by then. They can already likely can recreate smallpox? And only one reporter cares?
David, Edmonton, Canada
Look people if you cant do things yourself then dont critize others who are doing stuff with their intelligence ! i think he is doing a job which needs to be apreciated
Fahad, Pa,
It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Get a life!"
I think in this case one should always look to the late Richard Feynman's take on this kind of scientific adventurism - he discovered that the fault leading to the destruction of Challenger, was what looked insignificant, the o-ring - in the creation of modified life forms, one can never know what happens if x or y is missing.
Stephen Pain, Odense, Denmark
The ATP motor exists in mitochondria. Many organisms don't have mitochondria and therefore don't have the ATP motor, like yeast for example. So much for that ATP theory....besides, what does ATP synthesis matter to this article? The point is that Venter is rewriting the instructions for the cell, not reinventing the cell itself.
Mark, mukilteo, WA
I doubt it. Human DNA has over three billion lines of code in 2mm. While this is faciful stuff it is doubtfull if this creation could be self supporting for more than a counple of seconds once you understand the complxities oif DNA and RNA. One top DNA scientist said we need to blow up a cell about 20kms by 12 to start to get indea of the world of complexity it shows that we know nothing about. These structures also comprise the smallest motors spinning at 10,000 rpm only discovered 5 yrs ago that produce ATP. Without this motor ATP no life can be self sustainig. The Human boduy it is estimated produces half it weight in ATP. Cynide kills people by preventing ATP production. The discoveres of this ATOP Motor got the Nobel Praze but for nonsense like this its writer gets a wooden spoon award. So a simple chemical anything is nothing. It requires coding. Chemicals and material cant do this . As one of the top DNA men on the planet now says DNA is to complex to happen by accident .
Jas, Farnborough, UK
hahahahahahhaa
"but it also sounds like a world that would be largely controlled by J Craig Venter."
I dont like the sound of this guy one bit...
Luke, Warragul, Australia
It's certainly the dawn of a new era, but it could also spell the end of humanity courtesy of the mad scientist.
Frankenstein, watch this space...
Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire