Gene editing and synthetic biology are two techniques that go hand in hand but differ ever so slightly. It is this slight divergence that makes a world of a difference. Gene editing is defined as the process of editing an organism’s DNA by altering, removing or adding nucleotides to the genome. Whereas synthetic biology is defined as a combination of molecular biology and systems biology with engineering principles to design biological systems and bio-factories, or the use of molecular biology tools and techniques to forward-engineer cellular behavior.
By definition, both are means to redesign the very building blocks of life with synthetic biology being the new kid on the block stirring up a lot of attention. Humans have been involved in the manipulation of genetic materials since the dawn of time; in some ways knowing what we were doing and in other ways just taking a shot in the dark and hoping for the best. Ensuring only the healthiest and strongest animals breed in herd is a form of gene editing in that it selects for only those with the preferred qualities be allowed to pass their genetic material down to the next generation.
This is one of the oldest and simplest forms of gene editing, but through the years we have come up with progressively more effective ways of changing organisms to better suit our needs. “In the 1930s, chemical methods or ionizing radiation were used to mutate genomes and introduce new traits. This was a random process and breeders did not know what changes had actually occurred in the DNA. (Royal Society of New Zealand, 2016) As time progressed into the 1970s and 80s scientists became better able to alter, disrupt, or introduce specific genes; while more control over what could effected was ascertained, there was still little to no control over where exactly in the genome.
“Two of these techniques used bacteria or viruses to transfer the DNA, and a third method involved coating small metal particles with the DNA, and then ‘shooting’ the particles into cells. (Royal Society of New Zealand, 2016) This time frame shows that gene editing has improved by leaps and bounds with the spaces between discoveries of new techniques gradually shortening each time. Present day or modern day genome editing “is accomplished through the use of engineered nucleases that can make a double stranded “cut” or a single stranded “nick” in an organism’s DNA. These sites are altered and then repaired by homologous recombination or nonhomologous end joining. ” (Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017)
Modern day genome editing has resolved all the shortcomings of the previously discussed methods, from times long passed, and with the way the scientific community is progressing we may soon see synthetic biology make “modern genome editing” an obsolete form of modification. Synthetic biology, while it may be headlining articles and journals all across the world now, was actually a late bloomer in comparison to genome editing. Its’ humble beginnings took place in the not so distant past; 1961, in a publication by Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod about the lac operon in E. oli. (Cameron, 2014) “The ability to assemble new regulatory systems from molecular components was soon envisioned, but it was not until the molecular details of transcriptional regulation in bacteria were uncovered in subsequent years that a more concrete vision, based on programmed gene expression, began to take shape. ” (Cameron, 2014)
In came the 70s and 80s and with them the beginning of PCR and molecular cloning, though a significant advancement science still had not come far enough to create the biological systems that could replicate the behaviors of microorganisms. The 1990s brought in automated DNA sequencing and improved computational tools that enable complete microbial genomes to be sequenced, and high throughput techniques for measuring RNA, protein, lipids and metabolites enabled scientists to generate a vast catalogue of cellular components and their interactions. Gradually, it was recognized that the rational manipulation of biological systems, either by systematically tuning or rearranging their modular molecular constituents, could form the basis of a formal biological engineering discipline. (Cameron, 2014)
Early synthetic biologists began by creating basic gene regulatory circuits. “Collins and colleagues constructed a genetic toggle switch containing promoters that drive the expression of mutually inhibitory transcriptional repressors, then Elowitz and Leibler engineered and oscillatory circuit that consisted of a triple negative-feedback loop of sequential repressor-promoter pairs, termed the repressilator. ” (Cameron, 2014) The early 2000s saw a large increase in the field of synthetic biology, its first international conference being held in 2004 with researchers from all different backgrounds in attendance.
It was a meeting of the minds to try to come to a consensus as to how this newly popularized field would be able to incorporate the disciplines of chemistry, computer science, physics, engineering, and biology cohesively. Though progress in synthetic biology was fast, in its beginnings, compared to other techniques its pace and quality truly did not pick-up until 2008-2013, the discovery of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) in the early 2000s was one of the main reasons for the surge.
Complexity of circuits increased, the functions of parts were better known, and lower gene-synthesis costs continually improved the circuit engineering. As the field continuously grows and opens new doors and avenues for scientists, their eagerness, excitement and dedication to push further will grow as well, but as their optimism for breakthroughs increase there are others who view the future of synthetic biology far-less favorably. Gene editing and synthetic biology delve into similar matters when it comes to the manipulation of genetic material because f this similarity they also share a lot of the same perceived societal and ethical issues. Gene editing and synthetic biology have the potential to change life as we know it, but there are those who feel that the type of power that will be available in the near future because of genome editing is not meant to be wielded by man. Theologians believe that by using synthetic biology to alter DNA scientists are stepping into the role of God and anyone who chooses to “play God” is guilty of megalomania. Dabrock, 2009)
The scientists see gene editing as a way to improve the quality of life all around the world by effectively eliminating diseases and disorders. The scientists would go in and edit the genes of human embryos, removing genetic material that codes for harmful or fatal diseases, creating genetically modified humans. (Center for Genetics and Society, n. d. ) The thought of a world free from diseases is magnificent because it would mean a world with less suffering, but then there is the worry that by genetically engineering humans we could accidentally give rise to new social inequalities.
These inequalities could have the potential to escalate to a Hitler-like belief that those who are modified are inherently better than those who are not. Then, there are the issues of accidentally creating a negative trait, removing an unforeseen beneficial trait like the immunity to malaria that comes along with sickle cell anemia, and the effects that the modifications could have on future generations. A person could be modified to remove disease and show no ill signs, but after the genes have been passed on through generations an unforeseen ailment may become more and more apparent.
The fears that are held because of the great risks involved with gene editing are not unwarranted, but the potential good that can come from taking those risks is just as great if not greater. For example, genetically modified plants are modified by having genes from others species introduced to their systems are a nightmare because of the fear that those transgenes could be passed on to species if the plant were to breed in the wild. “Genome editing allows the precise inactivation of an endogenous gene, the conversion of an existing allele to a more favorable one, or the precise insertion of an identified variant into additional breeds.
The animal and plant products of these modifications are essentially identical to ones that could, and in some cases, do occur naturally or could be created by traditional breeding methods. ” (Carroll, 2015) This means that the organism while technically genetically modified would simply be the best-case scenario if two “perfect” parents contributed their genetic material and there is no risk for the GMO to transfer transgenes to other species and cause unforeseen mutations because there are no transgenes to begin with.
Scientists could use synthetic biology to detect and remove environmental contaminants and create safer and cleaner air for us to breathe and water for us to drink. They could also apply synthetic biology to applications that would diagnose, monitor and respond to disease in humans and animals and develop new drugs and vaccines that would be more effective and efficient than ever before. ” (Summers, 2013) The chance for something to go wrong or there to be a negative outcome is always present when a risk is being taken, but there is also the chance for something amazing and wonderful to happen.
The potential for greatness is obvious in gene editing and synthetic biology, but by moving forward in these two fields what are we truly risking and do we believe that the reward in the end will outweigh the risks that come prior to reaching the finish line. The views of those who oppose genetic editing are based in solid facts, but I believe that if enough caution is used and these fields are properly nurtured then what they will bring to world will be more than enough to silence any doubters as to whether they should be allowed to exist.