Scientist Creates ‘Artificial Life’ in Laboratory, Sparking Debate about ‘Playing God’
An American biologist and his team have managed to develop the first synthetic living cell from a mix of chemicals.An American biologist and his team have managed to develop the first synthetic living cell from a mix of chemicals.
Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics from Rockville, Maryland, who became famous for his role in sequencing one of the first human genomes in 2005, has manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube. With his team, Dr Venter transferred the manufactured chomosome into an empty cell and watched it multiply, replacing the native DNA. This process has been described as the creation of new life.
(Click here to read the report of the research).
‘This is the first synthetic cell that’s been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer,’ Dr Venter said.
‘This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind].’
Dr Venter’s aim, expressed in his research, is to achieve total control over a bacterium’s genome, first by synthesizing its DNA in a laboratory and then by designing a new genome stripped of many natural functions and equipped with new genes that govern production of useful chemicals.
The new development has triggered debate over the ethics of ‘playing God’ and the dangers the new technology could pose in terms of biological hazards and warfare.
Professor Julian Savulescu, an expert in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said:
‘Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity’s history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is going toward the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.
‘The potential is in the far future, but real and significant: dealing with pollution, new energy sources, new forms of communication. But the risks are also unparalleled. We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.
‘These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bio weapons imaginable,’ he added.
Dr David King, director of the watchdog Human Genetics Alert and Chief Scientific Adviser to the former Labour Government, said:
‘What is really dangerous is these scientists’ ambitions for total and unrestrained control over nature, which many people describe as ‘playing God’.
‘Scientists’ understanding of biology falls far short of their technical capabilities. We have already learnt to our cost the risks that gap brings, for the environment, animal welfare and human health.’
A number of scientists have expressed scepticism about the practicality of Dr Venter’s approach, which is a competitor to traditional genetic engineering methods, calling the research ‘a technical tour de force’ but not breakthrough science.
David Baltimore, a geneticist at the California Institute of Technology, said:
‘To my mind Craig [Venter] has somewhat overplayed the importance of this. He has not created life, only mimicked it.’
George Church, a molecular geneticist at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT, said Dr Venter’s approach ‘is not necessarily on the path’ to produce useful microorganisms.
Dr Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as ‘glitzy’ but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.
Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, denounced the synthetic genome as ‘dangerous new technology,’ saying that Dr Venter ‘should stop all further research until sufficient regulations are in place.’
