[MUSIC] All of this brings us to synthetic biology. Now, synthetic biology, the point I've been trying to make is that it's continuous with this prior work in recombinant DNA technology. And I think that's important both as we think about the science itself, the ethical issues raised by the science, and its governance. Synthetic biology, of course, became possible with the improvements in recombinant DNA technology, in sequencing. The capacity for sequencing and a lower cost of sequencing following the, or because of, the Human Genome Project. And improvement, development improvement of DNA synthesis technologies. That said, it can be a little difficult to define synthetic biology, because it is on a continuum and it is very, very diverse. Applications of synthetic biology include those in basic science, generation of fuel, bioremediation of the sort of crude oil eating bacteria, for example, biomining, uses of food source, food safety, medicine. This is a really broad range of applications, all of which raise a somewhat different constellation of issues. And unlike some other areas of technology, such as embryonic stem cell research, many, if not most of the ethical issues in synthetic biology are not necessarily about the technology itself, though some certainly are, but in fact, its applications. And the devil's really in the details. And we'll spend this course talking about different applications of this science. One application that has, I think, somewhat shaped the field, and certainly the public perception of the field, is worked by Craig Venter and JCVI. In particular, two experiments that I'm going to talk about just very, very briefly. The genome swapping experiment, which was published in 2007, wherein he took 2 related mycoplasma, which is the smallest sequenced genome for a self-replicating organism. He stripped one genome of all the proteins, transplanted the chromosome into another mycoplasm and used markers to isolate those with the new genome. So, he took the genome of one organism, put it into a different organism. But they couldn't, at that time, sort of boot up the new cell. They think the genome may have been degraded by the transplant E. So this was sort of the trajectory of, the beginning of a trajectory for this research. The other big experiment, that then led to a pretty broad policy discussion here in the US in particular, was the publication in 2010, which is listed here, wherein they successfully booted up a Mycoplasma recipient cell to create a new one with a wholly synthetic genome. And they called this JCVI-syn1, and it was sort of played as the first synthetic organism. It led to a lot of press, it led to a report requested by President Obama of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, and again, I think really captured the public imagination. Another aspect of synthetic biology that is unique is the activity and enthusiasm of a group of do-it-yourself scientists, the Biohackers. The folks who are internationally creating labs, where non-trained, citizen scientists, who are not formally trained scientists, can go into labs and do work. And there are about 30 of these DIY groups, internationally. Here in Baltimore, we have one called the Baltimore Underground Science Space. And there was a large project done by the Woodrow Wilson Center to develop DIYbio Codes of Conduct, both in North America and in Europe. And I want to show you these because it brings up an important point about international differences in perception of and response to science. So here we have the US, the North American code of conduct that was developed by a group of DIY scientists. And the European code of conduct. They are very similar. They have lots of overlap with, for example, transparency and safety. But in Europe they pointed out that we should have modesty. We should acknowledge, in our science, that we don't know everything. In the US, in contrast, or in North America rather, we added tinkering as a principle. Tinkering with biology leads to insight, and insight leads to innovation. This is an important difference in how science and responsibility within science is perceived in different areas internationally. And these differences will come up again throughout the course, as we talk about not only the ethical issues, but also governance issues related to the science. And what are some of the ethical issues? So there are intrinsic concerns about the science itself. About playing God, that this is not a power that we, as humans, should wield. Concerns about artificial versus natural life and what that means, and the creation of life. There are very real and broad dual-use concerns. So concerns about the use of synthetic biology to develop research and products that have both benefits in the hands of most, but also could be used for bad purposes or nefarious ends by people who wish to do harm with this science. Ecological implications, when syn-bio organisms are released into the environment. Concerns about social justice, for whom are products being developed? Who is participating in the conversation? Who stands to benefit, and who stands to bear the brunt of the risks? And health concerns. Not only in combination with the ecological or environmental implications, but also in cases where syn-bio is being used in bio medicine. As I mentioned, we will also talk about governance throughout this course. These are just some of the examples of recommendations in governance documents for synthetic biology that had been developed in recent years. Over the course, we will talk about different examples or applications of synthetic biology and the ethical and governance issues associated with those. I look forward to it.
