Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why does it take engineers to do “synthetic biology”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is one of Discover’s top 6 genetics stories of 2006. Not only are these people doing intelligent design research — they are engineers!

6 Biologists Crack Open Life’s Tool Kit

Intelligent design became a scientific reality this year with the report that researchers had custom-made a lifesaving microbe—one that helps make a much-needed drug against malaria. The feat is one of the first concrete applications of synthetic biology, an emerging field in which scientists reshuffle the components of cellular life in order to produce precisely tailored results.

Cobbling together the genes of three different species, chemical engineer Jay Keasling of the University of California at Berkeley transformed a metabolic pathway in yeast that allows the engineered microbe to produce a precursor to artemisinin, a compound used to treat malaria. Artemisinin is normally derived from leaves of the sweet wormwood plant, but it is difficult and expensive to extract in large quantities. A cheaper means of producing it could save many lives, as at least 1 million people die of malaria every year. “We made it over the most significant hurdle in our efforts to produce this drug,” says Keasling. The remaining steps needed to manufacture it, he says, can be achieved using standard, inexpensive synthetic chemistry.

In August the National Science Foundation affirmed the promise of synthetic biology with a $16 million grant to establish the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC), a collaboration among such institutions as Harvard University, MIT, the University of California at San Francisco, and the University of California at Berkeley. Projects of interest include creating drugs that fight HIV, bacteria that seek and invade tumor cells, and biological sources of renewable energy. In a separate project, Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, is attempting to synthesize a bacterium with the minimum genome needed to live.

Some researchers in the scientific community have expressed alarm, however, at the rapid progress in a field that could lead to a simple method for producing artificial pathogens, drug-resistant microorganisms, or new types of bioweapons. Not only has SynBERC set up an open-source system for sharing DNA sequences and the basic components of synthetic biology, but stretches of synthetic DNA can now be ordered over the Internet at relatively low cost. This has already allowed scientists to assemble the poliovirus from scratch and to resurrect the deadly 1918 flu virus. “DNA synthesis lets you go from genetic information, which is widely available, to genetic material,” explains Drew Endy, an assistant professor of biological engineering at MIT. In May scientists met to discuss the potential misuse of advanced biological engineering techniques. They produced a draft of broad guidelines for the industry—including the oversight of synthetic DNA sales—but no formal regulations are currently in place.

SOURCE: http://www.discover.com/issues/jan-07/features/genetics/#6

Comments
No mention whatsoever of Darwinian myths in that short article, and no need for that.Mats
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Now imagine an intelligent species millions of years ago developing the same abilities. Imagine them sending their pre-programmed designed organisms out to seed the universe. Now look around at nature.
I am one of the few here who entertain that something like this happened on earth, but it doesn't address how that ancient intelligent race came to be.avocationist
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
I remember reading an article last year about this scientist (can’t remember her name) who was working on one of these “minimum genome” projects. When asked by the interviewer about her motivation for trying to artificially create life, she responded with (or something like) “I want to show it doesn’t take a supernatural creator to make life.” Her statement was meant to be a nail in the coffin of creationism and ID (which apparently were the same to her). What I recalled thinking was, “If you succeed, you may prove it doesn’t take a supernatural being, but you’ll also prove it takes intelligence.” In the past ID proponents could (and did) confidently state the following: Outside of biology, everywhere where specified complexity and irreducible complexity are present, and causation is known, that causation involves intelligence." I guess the "Outside of biology" qualifier can now be discarded.sabre
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
TroutMac wrote: "Meyer was excellent, of course, but I think he missed a great opportunity when Peter Ward tried to discredit ID by pointing to biochemist Steve Benner. The fact that Benner has invented a novel scheme for encoding genetic information only demonstrates what IDers have been saying for years: Intelligence is required to produce and encode information." Very true. I too was disappointed that Meyer didn't jump on this as quickly or as hard as he should have, but as an armchair listener, I have to take my hat off to any debater who is able to pick up on most issues, if not all of them, on the spot. Hopefully many in the audience recognized Ward's inconsistency even if Meyer didn't call it out explicitly. www.evolutiondebate.info/WhatWard.htmEric Anderson
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Biology research based on neo-Darwinian concepts will be of little help trying to fight the terrorists who may want to use bioweapons against civilization. Any solution/cure for an intelligently designed bioweapon will, of course, also be intelligently designed/discovered.Inquisitive Brain
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Tims- Synthetic biology is demonstrating the causal adequacy of intelligence to diversify living organisms. In the minds of those open to the concept of ID, these feats of science are virtual demonstrations of the veracity of ID.Inquisitive Brain
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Insert ) where needed... CColumbo
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
If we go too far in tinkering with life (e.g. cloning; genetic "enhancement"; etc. then we might be forced to remove the "Intelligent" component from ID... This is one field of science and engineering where technology easily outstrips moral reflection. ColumboColumbo
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Imagine the capabilities these techniques may lead to a hundred, a thousand, or maybe millions of years from now if humans keep progressing. Custom designed higher organisms are certainly within the realm of possibility, given enough time. Now imagine an intelligent species millions of years ago developing the same abilities. Imagine them sending their pre-programmed designed organisms out to seed the universe. Now look around at nature.dacook
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Tims wrote: "I think this is a little out of scope when it comes to Intelligent Design, within the application of origin. Molecular biologists have been engineering bacteria to do different functions for years now." It seems to me that the only reason to think this story is somehow outside the scope of ID is if you're a Darwinist who is bent on denying the fact that intelligence is required to accomplish such things, and seeing that these stories demonstrate this fact precisely, such a Darwinist would naturally want to place that story outside the scope of ID and that way, perhaps, they won't have to deal with it.TRoutMac
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
I love these stories. Reminds me of that debate 'tween Stephen Meyer and Peter Ward last year. Meyer was excellent, of course, but I think he missed a great opportunity when Peter Ward tried to discredit ID by pointing to biochemist Steve Benner. The fact that Benner has invented a novel scheme for encoding genetic information only demonstrates what IDers have been saying for years: Intelligence is required to produce and encode information. For Benner's research to serve as a good argument AGAINST Intelligent Design, wouldn't Benner need to be quite literally "dumb as a box of rocks?" Seems to me that during debates such as these, when the Darwinist trots out examples like Benner to argue against ID, the debater on the ID side oughtta call him on it by saying something like: "Excuse me, but do you think [insert name of genetic engineer here] would appreciate your insulting his intelligence in a public forum such as this?" I'd love to see the reaction.TRoutMac
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
I think this is a little out of scope when it comes to Intelligent Design, within the application of origin. Molecular biologists have been engineering bacteria to do different functions for years now.Tims
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply