DOCSLIB.ORG

Synthetic Biology an Overview of the Debates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Synthetic Biology an Overview of the Debates SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY PROJECT / SYNBIO 3 SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY Ethical Issuesin SYNBIO 3/JUNE2009 An overview ofthedebates Contents Preface 3 Executive Summary 4 Who is doing what, where are they doing it and how is this current work funded? 6 How distinct is synthetic biology from other emerging areas of scientific and technological innovation? 9 Ethics: What harms and benefits are associated with synthetic biology? 12 The pro-actionary and pre-cautionary frameworks 18 N OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES N OVERVIEW OF A Competing—and potentially complementary—views about non-physical harms (harms to well-being) 23 The most contested harms to well-being 25 Conclusion: Moving the debate forward 26 References 29 ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: ii The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views Sloan Foundation. Wilson International Center for Scholars or the Alfred P. of the Woodrow Ethical Issues in SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY An overview of the debates Erik Parens, Josephine Johnston, and Jacob Moses The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York SYNBIO 3 / JUNE 2009 2 ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES Preface Synthetic biology will allow scientists and where such topics are divided into two broad engineers to create biological systems categories: concerns about physical and non- that do not occur naturally as well as to physical harms. While physical harms often re-engineer existing biological systems to trigger debates about how to proceed among perform novel and beneficial tasks. This researchers, policymakers, and the public, emerging field presents a number of non-physical harms present more difficult opportunities to address ethical issues early conundrums. These non-physical concerns and proactively. range from equitable distribution of benefits to fundamental beliefs about our place in the With synthetic biology, scientists are literally natural world. getting to the basis of life itself, but concerns about whether or not humans should be Ethical concerns are too often addressed “playing god” are only part of the equation. after investments in science have been made Concerns have already been voiced about and technologies are already mature and patents, oversight, and possible inequitable in the marketplace. At that point, neither access to new and potentially powerful the research community nor policymakers synthetic biology innovations in areas ranging have a strong incentive to address ethical from medicine to energy production. issues for fear that any debate may stifle technological advance and innovation. But This report by Erik Parens, Josephine Johnston, given the rate at which new technologies are and Jacob Moses of the Hastings Center, a emerging and converging, this paper argues bioethics research institute in Garrison, New that a comprehensive ethical approach is York, presents a framework for addressing needed early to best foster the wide public the social and ethical issues surrounding the acceptance and support of new technologies emerging field of synthetic biology. The paper such as synthetic biology. explores current frameworks for evaluating ethical issues and proposes an approach —David Rejeski Director, Synthetic Biology Project 3 Executive Summary • To advance knowledge and create • As emerging technologies converge, it • We can expect that ethical concerns will products that can promote human becomes clearer that the ethical issues arise with the advent of any emerging welfare, synthetic biologists seek to raised by these technologies are at technology. These concerns can crudely create biological systems that do not core similar and familiar. It would be a be divided into two large categories: occur naturally as well as to re-engineer waste of resources to take up the ethical concerns about physical harms and biological systems that do occur naturally. questions in parallel; i.e., it is not profitable concerns about non-physical harms. to invent a “new kind” of ethics for each Because “non-physical harms” captures • Synthetic biology can be considered an new technology. Instead, we need to get such a wide range of concerns, it can extension of genetic engineering, which, better at productively engaging the familiar be helpful to further divide non-physical as it advances, will increasingly converge ethical questions that cut across those harms into two groups: those that seem with nano and information technologies. emerging—and converging—technologies. to have gained traction among the Several putatively distinct areas of It is time to go from speaking about researchers closest to the action (e.g., N OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES N OVERVIEW OF emerging science and technology are hyphenated ethical enterprises (gen- concerns about how to fairly distribute A converging, making it ever less useful to ethics, nano-ethics, neuro-ethics, synbio- the tools needed to do synthetic biology try to draw clear borders among them. ethics) to speaking about the ethics of and how to fairly distribute the benefits of emerging technologies. synthetic biology) and those that have not gained traction among the researchers and scholars closest to the action (primarily concerns about the appropriate attitude to adopt toward ourselves and the rest of the natural world). ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: ETHICAL ISSUES IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY: 4 • We can also anticipate that people • So far, the literature on synthetic biology • There is a need to identify and engage will often (though not always and not contains significant work on safety and with both physical and non-physical necessarily) think about these ethical security (i.e., physical harms), in which the harms, including those that are deeply concerns using, crudely speaking, two pro-actionary stance has been winning contested. Such an engagement will lead frameworks: a “pro-actionary” or a “pre- the day. That literature also shows some to greater mutual understanding, which is cautionary” framework. People using recognition of the importance of the first both a good in itself and carries practical each framework can give reasons for their kind of non-physical harm and a few benefits. views, but no one proceeds from reasons measures to address some of these harms alone. Noticing that people can proceed (for instance, calls for making patentable • With few exceptions, in the United States from different ethical frameworks can help inventions open-source). But there has we have required policy makers to us better appreciate the disagreements been little meaningful engagement with consider concerns about physical harms, regarding whether the risks of physical and the second kind of non-physical harm, but expected them to remain largely silent non-physical harms are serious and what which depends on even more deeply regarding non-physical harms. Given actions should be taken in response to contested views about the appropriate role the ardency with which concerns about those risks. of humans in relation to themselves, other non-physical harms continue to bubble creatures and the environment. Some up in the public conversation about go so far as to argue that it is not worth emerging technologies, it is time to have a engaging with these concerns. systematic look at the question, what role can concerns about non-physical harms play in the policy world? We do not fully answer that question in this document, but take it to be central for our future research. 5 Who is doing what, where are they doing it and how is this current work funded? INTRODUCTION It is difficult to find a hard-and-fast definition students. He also co-founded the gene of synthetic biology, given both the range of synthesis company Codon Devices. Codon Naturally occurring biological systems activities it involves and the frequent overlap Devices lists Flagship Ventures, Alloy Ventures, are even more complex and difficult to between synthetic biology and other fields of Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and 9 manipulate than anyone imagined 10 or research and technology. One way to begin to Byers and Highland Capital as investors. 20 years ago. There are myriad technical understand this range of activity is to look at the problems in getting these systems to act work of the field’s key players (indeed, the field Endy is working at what Maureen O’Malley the way we want. With synthetic biology, is still young enough so that we can identify et al. have called DNA-based device 7 however, scientists hope to leapfrog these four of the key players). These individuals come construction. He is spearheading an effort problems. One of synthetic biologists’ from different disciplines (including engineering to construct and catalogue a registry of what hopes is that by building biological and genetics), have different sources of he calls “biobricks,” which are made from systems from the ground up, they can funding, approach the topic from different DNA and other molecules and can in turn create biological systems that will function angles (creating biobricks out of DNA and be used by other researchers (on an open- like computers or factories, producing the other molecules, engineering whole genomes, source basis) to build what they want. 7 products we want, when we want and in creating cells) and have different goals (from the amounts we want.1,2 (Such industrial understanding the evolution of life to creating Endy’s catalogue of biobricks can be thought useful products like ethanol or artemisinin).8 of as bio-parts that, for example, will reliably N OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATES N OVERVIEW OF analogies are inescapable when talking A about this work, and while they do not turn gene production on or off, or as bio-tools appropriately capture the “living” element Drew Endy, who left the Massachusetts that, for example, will reliably measure the of synthetic biology, they do exemplify the Institute of Technology (MIT) for Stanford concentration of a particular gene product. field’s central goal: to make biology easier University in 2008, is one of those key players.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Resources for Biology Classes
    NASA Resources for Biology classes For NC Bio. Obj. 1.2.3 - Cell adaptations help cells survive in particular environments Lesson Plan: Is it Alive? This lesson is designed to be a review of the characteristics of living things. http://marsed.asu.edu/sites/default/files/stem_resources/Is_it_Alive_HS_Lesson_2_16.pdf Lesson Plan: Building Blocks of Life Experiment with Yeast to simulate carbonaceous meteorites. https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Exploring_Meteorite_Mysteries.pdf#page=138 Video: ● Subsurface Astrobiology: Cave Habitats on Earth, Mars and Beyond: In our quest to explore other planets, we only have our own planet as an analogue to the environments we may find life. By exploring extreme environments on Earth, we can model conditions that may be present on other celestial bodies and select locations to explore for signatures of life. https://images.nasa.gov/details-ARC-20160809-AAV2863-SummerSeries-15-PenelopeBoston- Youtube.html ● Real World: Heart Rate and Blood Pressure: Learn about the physiological effects reduced gravity environments have on the human body. Use multiplication to calculate cardiac output and find out what effect space travel has on sensory-motor skills, stroke volume and heart rates of the astronauts. https://nasaeclips.arc.nasa.gov/video/realworld/real-world-heart-rate-and-blood- pressure ● Launchpad: Astrobiology: Are we alone in the universe? Where do we come from? Join NASA in the search for answers to these and many more questions about life in our solar system. Learn how astrobiologists use what we know about Earth to investigate Titan, Europa and other far-off worlds. https://nasaeclips.arc.nasa.gov/video/launchpad/launchpad-astrobiology Article: ● Synthetic Biology - ‘Worker Microbes’ for Deep Space Missions https://www.nasa.gov/content/synthetic-biology For NC Bio.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology the Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology
    The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology Drafted through a collaborative process among civil society groups. For more information or copies of this declaration, contact: The Principles for the Eric Hoffman Food and technology policy campaigner Friends of the Earth U.S. Oversight of Synthetic Biology 1100 15th St. NW, 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 202.222.0747 [email protected] www.foe.org Jaydee Hanson Policy director International Center for Technology Assessment 660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20003 202.547.9359 [email protected] www.icta.org Jim Thomas Research program manager ETC Group 5961 Rue Jeanne Marce Montreal, Quebec Canada +1.514.273.9994 [email protected] The views expressed in this declaration represent those of the signers and do not necessarily represent those of individual contributors to Friends of the Earth U.S., International Center for Technology Assessment, ETC Group or the funding organizations. Funding thanks to CS Fund and Appleton Foundation. The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology The undersigned, a broad coalition of civil society groups, social movements, local and indigenous communities, public interest, environmental, scientif ic, human rights, religious and labor organizations concerned about various aspects of synthetic biology’s human health, environmental, social, economic, ethical and other impacts, offer the following declaration, The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology. Executive Summary Synthetic biology, an extreme form of genetic engi- and should include consideration of synthetic biology’s neering, is developing rapidly with little oversight or wide-ranging effects, including ethical, social and eco- regulation despite carrying vast uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSCRIPT Applications
    Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues TRANSCRIPT Applications J. Craig Venter, Ph.D. Founder and President, J. Craig Venter Institute George Church, Ph.D. Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School Kristala L. J. Prather, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Massachu- setts Institute of Technology Meeting 1, Session 2 July 8, 2010 Washington, D.C. Jim Wagner: Could we have our speakers come to the table. And if others could take their chairs, we’ll get under way. Thank you. Commission members, we need you as well, actually. I see them filter- ing up. I saw Nita out there. And there’s Bonnie in the back of the room. So that there is ample time for our speakers to present and for us to ask questions, let’s do get under way. Really, again, appreciate this morning’s conversation and the presenta- tions, helping us to — wow. Helping us to define what is and is not synthetic biology and to understand a little bit more about some of the science involved. This particular session, we are going to focus and we have asked our experts to focus more on applications. We’ll try to use a similar format. Have our speakers present for a brief period. You have the timer in front of you. Make sure after all of you have pre- sented the commission has time to ask questions. And then we’ll try to throw it open — not try to – we will, certainly, throw it open to the public for other questions they may have.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Diffusion of Scientific Innovation
    Driving Diffusion of Scientific Innovation - The Role of Institutional Entrepreneurship and Open Science in Synthetic Biology Vom Promotionsausschuss der Technischen Universit¨at Hamburg-Harburg zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) genehmigte Dissertation von Giulio Barth aus M¨unster 2018 Advisors: Prof. Dr. C. Ihl, Prof. Dr. M. G. M¨ohrle Institute of Entrepreneurship, TUHH i Gutachter: Prof. Dr. C. Ihl Prof. Dr. M. G. Mohrle¨ Vorsitz: Prof. Dr. C. Luthje¨ Tag der mundlichen¨ Prufung:¨ 14. September 2018 ”Our victory: inevitable; our timing: uncertain.” (Drew Endy, Assistant Professor Stanford University) i Abstract Scientific innovations need to widely diffuse to fully exploit their potential. Prior research investigated levers on the diffusion of scientific innovation with particular interest on institutions, e.g., settings of property rights. As institutional theory lacks in explaining emergence and shaping of institu- tions, the institutional entrepreneur approach faces these limitations. Key actors combine logics from multiple fields and convince their social context of their ideas to legitimate the creation of new institutions and shape an emerging field. This thesis validates theories on institutional entrepreneurs and investigates the end-to process from diffusing a logic to the impact of an established insti- tution on scientific innovations in context of the emerging synthetic biology. The field is expected to introduce the 5th revolution and characterized by the central logic of making biology an engineering discipline. In chapter 4 theories on institutional entrepreneurs driving diffusion of in- stitutional logics to shape an emerging field are validated. To measure the social influence mechanisms, the heterogeneous diffusion model is adapted to the institutional logic.
    [Show full text]
  • CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2018/1/3 12 January 2018
    CBD Distr. GENERAL CBD/SBSTTA/22/INF/3 CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2018/1/3 12 January 2018 ENGLISH ONLY AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC, DIGITAL SEQUENCE INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL GENETIC RESOURCES ADVICE Montreal, Canada, 13-16 February 2018 Twenty-second meeting Item 3 of the provisional agenda** Montreal, Canada, 2-7 July 2018 Item 3 of the provisional agenda*** FACT-FINDING AND SCOPING STUDY ON DIGITAL SEQUENCE INFORMATION ON GENETIC RESOURCES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE NAGOYA PROTOCOL Note by the Executive Secretary 1. In decision XIII/16, paragraph 3(b), the Executive Secretary was requested to commission a fact-finding and scoping study, subject to the availability of funds, to clarify terminology and concepts and to assess the extent and the terms and conditions of the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources in the context of the Convention and the Nagoya Protocol. 2. Accordingly, the Executive Secretary commissioned a research team led by Ms. Sarah Laird of People and Plants International and Ms. Rachel Wynberg of the University of Cape Town, to carry out this study. The study was undertaken with the generous financial support of Canada, the European Union and Switzerland. 3. A draft of the study was made available online for peer review from 8 November to 1 December 2017. 1 The comments received in response have been made available online.2 The research team revised the study in the light of the comments received and the final version is presented below in the form and language in which it was received by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Biology and the CBD Five Key Decisions for COP 13 & COP-MOP 8
    Synthetic Biology and the CBD Five key decisions for COP 13 & COP-MOP 8 Synthetic biology threatens to undermine all What Is Synthetic Biology? three objectives of the Convention if Parties fail to act on the following 5 key issues: Synthetic biology describes the next generation of biotechnologies that attempt to engineer, re- 1. Operational Definition. It’s time for the design, re-edit and synthesize biological systems, CBD to adopt an operational definition of including at the genetic level. synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes far beyond the first 2. Precaution: Gene drives. Gene drives pose generation of ‘transgenic’ engineered organisms. wide ecological and societal threats and should Predicted to be almost a 40 billion dollar (US) be placed under a moratorium. market by 2020, industrial activity in synthetic 3. Biopiracy: Digital Sequences. Synthetic biology is rapidly exploding as new genome biology allows for digital theft and use of DNA editing tools and cheaper synthesis of DNA sequences – this must be addressed by both the make it easier and faster to genetically re-design CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. or alter biological organisms. Synthetic biology-derived products already on 4. Socio-economic Impacts: Sustainable Use. the market include biosynthesized versions of The CBD needs a process to address impacts flavors, fragrances, fuels, pharmaceuticals, of synthetic biology on sustainable use of textiles, industrial chemicals, cosmetic and food biodiversity. ingredients. A next generation of synthetically 5. Cartagena Protocol: Risk Assessment. engineered (including ‘genome edited’) crops, Parties to the COP-MOP 8 need to clearly insects and animals are also nearing move forward with elaborating risk assessment commercialization.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Directions of Synthetic Biology for Energy & Power
    Future Directions of Synthetic Biology for Energy & Power March 6–7, 2018 Michael C. Jewett, Northwestern University Workshop funded by the Basic Research Yang Shao-Horn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Office, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Christopher A. Voigt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology for Research & Engineering. This report does not necessarily reflect the policies or positions Prepared by: Kate Klemic, VT-ARC of the US Department of Defense Esha Mathew, AAAS S&T Policy Fellow, OUSD(R&E) Preface OVER THE PAST CENTURY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS BROUGHT RE- MARKABLE NEW CAPABILITIES TO ALL SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY; from telecommunications, energy, and electronics to medicine, transpor- tation and defense. Technologies that were fantasy decades ago, such as the internet and mobile devices, now inform the way we live, work, and interact with our environment. Key to this technologi- cal progress is the capacity of the global basic research community to create new knowledge and to develop new insights in science, technology, and engineering. Understanding the trajectories of this fundamental research, within the context of global challenges, em- powers stakeholders to identify and seize potential opportunities. The Future Directions Workshop series, sponsored by the Basic Re- search Directorate of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, seeks to examine emerging research and engineering areas that are most likely to transform future tech- nology capabilities. These workshops gather distinguished academic researchers from around the globe to engage in an interactive dia- logue about the promises and challenges of emerging basic research areas and how they could impact future capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming and Our Societies, Economies, Lives
    The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives economies, societies, our and transforming Innovations Revolution: Bio The The Bio Revolution Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives May 2020 McKinsey Global Institute Since its founding in 1990, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) has sought to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. As the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, MGI aims to help leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors understand trends and forces shaping the global economy. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth, natural resources, labor markets, the evolution of global financial markets, the economic impact of technology and innovation, and urbanization. Recent reports have assessed the digital economy, the impact of AI and automation on employment, physical climate risk, income inequal ity, the productivity puzzle, the economic benefits of tackling gender inequality, a new era of global competition, Chinese innovation, and digital and financial globalization. MGI is led by three McKinsey & Company senior partners: co-chairs James Manyika and Sven Smit, and director Jonathan Woetzel. Michael Chui, Susan Lund, Anu Madgavkar, Jan Mischke, Sree Ramaswamy, Jaana Remes, Jeongmin Seong, and Tilman Tacke are MGI partners, and Mekala Krishnan is an MGI senior fellow.
    [Show full text]
  • Genome Mining and Synthetic Biology in Marine Natural Product Discovery
    marine drugs Editorial Genome Mining and Synthetic Biology in Marine Natural Product Discovery Maria Costantini Department of Marine Biotechnology, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Villa Comunale, 80121 Napoli, Italy; [email protected]; Tel.: +39-081-583-3285 Received: 17 November 2020; Accepted: 22 November 2020; Published: 3 December 2020 Oceans cover nearly 70% of the earth’s surface and host a huge ecological, chemical, and biological diversity. The natural conditions of the sea favor, in marine organisms, the production of a large variety of novel molecules with great pharmaceutical potential. Marine organisms are unique in their structural and functional features compared to terrestrial ones [1,2]. Innovation in this field is very rapid, as revealed by the funding of several Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and Horizon 2020 projects under the topic “Blue Growth”. The major parts of these projects have the common final goal of meeting the urgent need to discover new drug entities to counteract the increased incidence of severe diseases (such as cancer) and the reduced efficacy of existing drugs [3]. For this reason, the application of molecular biology techniques in biotechnological field is very important. Driven by the rapidly-decreasing cost and increasing throughput of DNA-sequencing technologies, significant progress in genomics has renewed interest in the discovery of natural products. Rapidly-expanding genomic and metagenomic datasets reveal a vast number of biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) in nature, which are predicted to encode novel biomedically-relevant molecules. This ‘top-down’ discovery approach can only provide access to a small fraction of biosynthetic compounds, given that the majority of microorganisms cannot be isolated or cultured.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems and Control Theoretic Approaches to Engineer Robust
    Systems and Control Theoretic Approaches to Engineer Robust Biological Systems by Yili Qian Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY September 2020 ○c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. Author................................................................ Department of Mechanical Engineering August 7, 2020 Certified by. Domitilla Del Vecchio Professor of Mechanical Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Nicolas G. Hadjiconstantinou Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Theses 2 Systems and Control Theoretic Approaches to Engineer Robust Biological Systems by Yili Qian Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering on August 7, 2020, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract Synthetic biology is an emerging field of research aimed to engineer biological systems by inserting programmed DNA molecules into living cells. These DNAs encode the production and subsequent interactions of biomolecules that allow the cells to have novel sensing, computing, and actuation capabilities. However, most success stories to date rely heavily on trial and error. This is mainly because genetic systems are context-dependent: the expression level of a synthetic gene often depends not only on its own regulatory inputs, but also on the expression of other supposedly unconnected genes. This lack of modularity leads to unexpected behaviors when multiple genetic subsystems are composed together, making it difficult to engineer complex systems that function predictably and robustly in practice. This thesis characterizes resource competition as a form of context dependence, and presents control theoretic approaches to engineer robust, context-independent gene networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Biology in the United States a Brief History of an Emerging Innovation System
    Synthetic Biology in the United States A Brief History of an Emerging Innovation System David Rejeski Global Fellow Wilson Center March 2016 Acknowledgments: I was lucky. I had a front seat during the development of a new field — synthetic biology. Not being a scientist, I had not expected those in the field to open their arms to a foreigner with obvious leanings towards the often maligned and un-scientific field of public policy. But it happened. Dozens of people took the time to talk to me, in person or by phone, about their involvement in the field, their hopes, and their concerns. My special thanks to Paula Olsiewski of the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, who supported the Synthetic Biology Project, myself and my staff, at the Woodrow Wilson Center for eight years. Special thanks also to Drew Endy, who, like a magician pulling rabbits from a hat, seemed to have an endless library of important historical documents and photos he was willing to share. Tom Knight and Peter Carr reviewed early versions of the history section and provided valuable feedback. Thanks to my colleague at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Leena Ilmola, who integrated me into the proposal for the Finnish Academy, an opportunity I would have certainly missed. This story is my construction and I take responsibility for the interpretation, including any errors or failures of inclusion. Maybe we can make it better. Dave Rejeski Washington, DC The research leading to these results has received funding from the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland under grant agreement no: 293446 - Platform Value Now: Value Capturing in the fast emerging platform ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Biology
    WHITE PAPER ENGINEERING BIOLOGY: A PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY TO FUEL MULTI-SECTOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND MODERNIZE BIOMANUFACTURING IN CANADA National Engineering Biology Steering Committee November 2020 National Engineering Biology Steering Committee • Dr. Bettina Hamelin, President and CEO, Ontario Genomics (Chair) • Andrew Casey, President and CEO, BIOTECanada • Dr. Doane Chilcoat, Leader, Applied Science and Technology at Corteva Agriscience • Dr. Lakshmi Krishnan, Acting VP, Life Sciences, National Research Council • Dr. Krishna Mahadevan, Professor, University of Toronto • Dr. Vincent Martin, Director, Centre for Applied Synthetic Biology, Concordia University • Dr. Keith Pardee, Canada Research Chair in Synthetic Biology in Human Health, University of Toronto • Dr. Steve Webb, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Global Institute for Food Security • Dr. Peter Zandstra, Director, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia Observers • Pari Johnston, Vice-President, Policy and Public Affairs, Genome Canada • Dr. Yale Michaels, Banting Postdoctoral Fellow and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Trainee • Amy Yeung, CSBERG Director of Leadership Development, cGEM Co-Founder and Co-Director Supported by: Engineering Biology: A Platform Technology to Fuel Multi-Sector Economic Recovery and Modernize Biomanufacturing in Canada 2 Executive Summary Engineering biology tools and technologies are disrupting global markets and creating incredible opportunities for the most innovative organizations. Leading G20 jurisdictions
    [Show full text]