Synthetic Biology

While synthetic biology offers us many significant benefits, there is a risk that these benefits will accrue to the wealthy nations and corporations that currently control almost all cutting edge research in the field. To secure our interests we need to participate in global discussions on the subject. And increase our investments in the sector.

This is a link-enhanced version of an article that first appeared in the Mint. You can read the original here.

We are witnessing the birth of remarkable new discipline called synthetic biology, a brand new field of study that leverages advances in genetic engineering and bio-computing to develop new biological systems that have been designed to perform specific functions. According to Boston Consulting Group, synthetic biology will, by the end of the decade, account for more than a third of global output—nearly $30 trillion in value. This will force businesses in sectors as diverse as health and beauty, fashion and textiles, food and agriculture, and mining and construction to come to terms with such significant disruption that it could upend the ways in which they have traditionally functioned.

There are a number of different applications to which synthetic biology is being put. In the fashion industry, it has allowed us to experiment with a wide range of new fabrics and materials. Fashion brands like Hermes have already started using mycelium (the root structures of mushrooms) to create pliable new substances to substitute the leather that is usually used to make bags. Others have genetically engineered yeast to produce modified forms of collagen that produce new fabrics with improved strength, stretchability and durability and which can be designed with specific requirements, such as tear resistance or thickness, in mind.

In a previous article, I wrote about how we should soon be able to produce artificial meat at scale, significantly reducing the environmental impact of our current industrial approach to animal husbandry. We can similarly engineer microbial products to directly convert nitrogen from the air. This means all we need to do is introduce these microbes into the soil and we will be able to significantly reduce our dependence on artificial fertilizers.

In the mining industry, advances in synthetic biology now offer more environmentally friendly ways to extract valuable metals like copper, uranium and gold from the ore mined from the ground. Instead of using chemicals like cyanide to extract the required metals from their ores (generating toxic effluents and vast quantities of waste), by deploying genetically engineered micro-organisms to bio-leach the ore, we could significantly lower the operating costs of mining and also improve the sector’s yields.

Despite the progress we have witnessed so far, the continued growth of synthetic biology will be highly dependent on the availability of data. So as to design new biological pathways, researchers need access to data on protein structures and their interactions, as well as computational models of biological pathways and genetic regulation, but above all, access to bioinformatic resources that will allow them to advance their research.

Much of this data resides in the biological resources of 17 ‘mega-diverse’ countries, those with exceptional biodiversity: high levels of endemism and diversity of species and ecosystems, as well as significant ecological processes and functions.

Since almost all mega-diverse countries have in the past suffered the depredations of colonial aggrandisement, they consider their genetic resources to be national assets whose benefits must be adequately secured, so that they can be utilized for their own benefit. This has given rise to the notion of genetic sovereignty—that local populations should have the sole right to determine how the commercial and scientific value of their unique genetic profiles should be realized.

These fears are not unfounded. It is likely that wealthy nations and corporations that currently control almost all cutting edge research in the field will stand to benefit the most from progress in this field, while its environmental and economic risks will likely impact vulnerable populations disproportionately.

We must address these concerns even as we find ways to unlock the potential of all that synthetic biology has to offer. Progress must be made in an equitable way that benefits all. To that end, we should put in place measures that will ensure clear communication on the scope of synthetic biology activities, so that the public is kept well informed of possible outcomes, both positive and negative. We need to ensure accountability, so that all organisations involved in the field’s research and development (R&D) can be held responsible for the societal and environmental outcomes of their activities. Above all, we need to ensure effective engagement across a broad range of stakeholders, so that decisions made in this field can be informed through a plurality of viewpoints and contexts.

The Convention on Biological Diversity and subsequent Nagoya Protocol have already put in place legal frameworks around which benefits arising from non-human genetic resources could be shared. In response, several countries have established Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements, so that the use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge can serve common purposes. Others have adopted measures that value their genetic heritage and traditional knowledge appropriately in order to make way for their future use.

Given that India is one of the world’s 17 mega-diverse countries, it is critical that we actively engage with developments in the sector so that we can ensure that our rich biodiversity resources are harnessed for the global good. But above all, we need to encourage R&D investments in this sector so that we can benefit from the diversity we have been blessed with.