Meiogenics: Synthetic Meets Some enthusiasts of synthetic biology envision technologies that would “improve” —and, perhaps, create useful “subhumans.” By Stuart A. Newman

Synthetic biology is a collection of virus-proof.”4 In a similar vein, Drew If you could complement techniques, and research and busi- Endy, a synthetic biology researcher with a secondary path, decode a ge- ness agendas, that includes the con- formerly at MIT and now at Stanford, nome, take it off-line to the level of struction of DNA sequences that asked rhetorically in an interview information…we can then design encode protein or RNA molecules with a New Yorker reporter, “What if whatever we want, and recompile which assemble into macromolecu- we could liberate ourselves from the it…At that point, you can make dis- lar complexes, biochemical circuits tyranny of evolution by being able to posable biological systems that don’t and networks with known or novel design our own offspring?”5 have to produce offspring.”7 functions; the substitution of chemi- One difference from earlier eugen- With the objective thus being cally synthesized DNA or DNA ana- ic fantasies is that synthetic biologists “meiogenics” (from the Greek μείον: logues for their natural counterparts now know enough to realize that it less), that is, the creation of useful in order to change cell behavior and/ would be hundreds of times more subhumans, many barriers to imple- or produce novel products; and at- likely to botch an embryo’s genome menting such programs fall aside. Ex- tempts to define and construct basic by gene manipulation techniques isting regulatory regimes on living systems from minimal sets of than to come up with an improve- experimentation pertain to what are molecules.1 Synthetic biology has ment. The prospect of trying these agreed-upon humans; other, more been termed “extreme genetic engi- techniques on their own prospective permissive experimental regimes, neering” by the Erosion Technology offspring thus fails to arouse much cover . If synthetic and Concentration (ETC) Group2, enthusiasm, despite the promotion biologists can calibrate and titrate in contrast to earlier recombinant of a supposed right of “procreative biological humanity and its DNA techniques that sought mainly liberty” by transhumanism-friendly consciousness by taking the human to modify and refine existing types of legal theorists.6 The inherent riski- genome offline and recompiling it, organisms by altering or inserting in- ness of embryo genetic manipulation we may be faced, in 20 years, with dividual genes. has also become generally known, all manner of humanoid organisms, Although production of new precluding significant numbers of serving various practical purposes. kinds of fuels and foods are the best- the general public from offering up Some may even represent meta- known, and potentially most lucra- their embryos for such experiments. phoric “lemonade” salvaged from the tive, programmatic objectives of syn- If we think of human-type organ- lemons of transhumanist experimen- thetic biology, the field’s visionaries isms not as anybody’s children (or tation. It is not clear who will make and front men also have ambitions parents), but rather as sources of the cut of being human, who will not, that have landed them in the pre- transplantable tissues and organs, and who will decide. But if begin- cincts of transhumanism, a eugenic experimental subjects, or crash test ning- and end-of-life controversies cultural movement concerned with dummies and land mine defusers, have been among the most divisive the production of “better” humans.3 eugenics takes on a whole new set social issues up to the present, the Thus, the Harvard researcher George of meanings, in which the improve- implementation of the synthetic bi- Church confided to a reporter for ments are more directed toward util- ologists’ meiogenic future may even Science magazine, “I wouldn’t mind ity rather than enhanced success as further erode a shared sense of being virus-free,” which elicited the members of the human community. humanness. nnn comment: “It may be too late to reen- In Drew Endy’s words, “If you look gineer all of his own cells to prevent at human beings as we are today, one Stuart A. Newman, PhD, is Professor viral infections, but Church doesn’t would have to ask how much of our of and at New rule out the possibility of rewiring own design is constrained by the fact York Medical College. He was a founding the genome of a human embryo to be that we have to be able to reproduce… member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

Volume 25 Number 1-2 GeneWatch 31 that, together, may reflect a positive, and cultural and historical onto- The writing of this article was supported strength-based perspective about genetic system that constitutes the in part by grants from the John Temple- human development.23 fundamental process of human de- ton Foundation, the Thrive Foundation velopment across the life span. for Youth, and the National 4-H Coun- Conclusions Given the plasticity of the rela- cil. I am grateful to G. John Geldhof, tional developmental system within Gary Greenberg, Jacqueline V. Lerner, Quite simply, genes are not the which genes are embedded, a fi- Jarrett M. Lerner, Peter C. M. Molenaar, to-be-reduced-to entities that pro- nal split between basic and applied Megan Kiely Mueller, Willis F. Overton, vide any “blueprint” for behavior or science may be overcome. We may and Kristina L. Schmid for their com- development, nor do they function be optimistic that the future of ge- ments. Richard M. Lerner may be con- as a “master molecule;” they are not netic research will be marked by tacted at [email protected]. the context-independent governors 24 new information about how we can of the “lumbering robots” hous- promote epigenetic changes that ing them; and they are not the fixed enhance the probability of more material basis of the grand synthesis positive development among all in- of heredity and Darwinism found in nnn 25 dividuals across the life course. the neo-Darwinian model. Instead, and consistent with the four-dimen- , PhD, is Bergstrom sional, and neo-Lamarckian system Richard M. Lerner Chair in Applied Developmental Sci- involved in evolution,26 genes are a ence and the Director of the Institute plastic feature of the four-dimen- for Applied Research in Youth Develop- sional, epigenetic, action-oriented, ment at Tufts University.

Endnotes

Stuart Newman, p. 31 Richard M. Lerner, p. 34 Greenberg, F. (2011). The failure of biogene- tic analysis in psychology: Why psychol- 1. Newman, S.A. 2012. Synthetic biol- 1. For reviews, see: ogy is not a biological science. Research ogy: Life as app store. Capitalism Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts in Human Development, 8(3-4), 173-191. Nature Socialism, in press. and theories of human develop- Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring 2. ETC Group. 2010. The new biomassters: ment (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: environmental and behavioral influ- Synthetic biology and the next as- Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ences on gene activity: From central sault on biodiversity and livelihoods. Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental psy- dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. ETC Group Communiqué 104. chology: Philosophy, concepts, methodol- Psychological Review, 105, 792-802. 3. Newman, S.A. 2010. The trans- ogy. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of Overton, W. F. (2011). Relational de- humanism bubble. Capitalism child psychology, vol. 1: Theoretical models velopmental systems and quantita- Nature Socialism 21 (2): 29-42. of human development (6th ed., pp. 18- tive behavior genetics: Alternative of 4. Bohannon, J. 2011. The life hacker. 88). Editors-in-chief: W. Damon & R. M. parallel methodologies. Research in Science 333 (6047): 1236-1237 Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Human Development, 8(3-4), 258-263. 5. Specter, M. 2009. A life of its own. Overton, W. F. (2010b). Life-span de- 3. Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.). Where will synthetic biology lead us? velopment: Concepts and issues. (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology The New Yorker. September 28: 61. In W. R. Overton (Ed.), Cognition, (6th edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. 6. Robertson, J. A. “Procreative Liberty biology, and methods across the life 4. Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. in the Era of Genomics.” Am J Law span: Vol. 1, Handbook of life-span (Eds.). (2010). Developmental science: Med 29, no. 4 (2003): 439-87. development. Editor in chief: R. M. An advanced textbook (6th edition). 7. Specter, op. cit., p. 62 Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. : Taylor and Francis. 2. For critiques, see:

Volume 25 Number 1-2 GeneWatch 37