Congress, Obama Take Sudden Interest in Synthetic Biology

[kpete]

Source: Wired

Congress, Obama Take Sudden Interest in Synthetic Biology

* By Alexis Madrigal Email Author
* May 27, 2010 |
Congress explicitly took up the subject of synthetic biology for the first time Thursday during a hastily convened hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Wired crowd has been talking about how to engineer biological machines for years, but Craig Venter’s announcement last week that he’s created a synthetic cell has drawn the attention of the very highest levels of government.

The hearing came shortly after President Barack Obama ordered a six-month review of synthetic biology by a panel of scientific stars.

The House committee members seemed primarily interested in the potential of synthetic biology to create micro-organisms that could effectively produce hydrocarbons that could be used to power the nation’s transportation system.

Read more: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/congress-obama-synthetic-bio/

[lxlxlxl]

1. probably because of that single cell that was cooked up the other week...

it is a big deal, and i dont have links on hand, but we are at the point that we can make cells that reproduce. a panel on the ethics and science involved is welcome.

[On the Road]

2. Well ,One of the Big Applications May be Energy

better to grow your own oil than be drilling a mile under the ocean.

[Fearless]

3. Why not hydrogen then... It should be much easier... and is much cleaner too...

[Posteritatis]

5. Making it cheaply is the problem. (nt)

[Fearless]

7. Well if you're building it...

Hydrogen is much less complex a structure to create than oil or other heavier hydrocarbons. It would be faster than them.

[Posteritatis]

8. You cannot "build" atoms. (nt)

[Fearless]

20. "Build"? Seriously?

It's clear what I meant.

[mike_c]

17. maybe not from a biological perspective....

Not much free hydrogen on the Earth's surface. The stuff is wickedly hard to handle in elemental form outside of confinement-- it tends to want to drift off into space pretty quickly. H+ ions are ubiquitous in solution, of course, but not diatomic molecular hydrogen. On the other hand, hydrocarbon metabolism is broad and wide within cells-- MANY potential pathways for modification, and the products would not be difficult to handle, concentrate, or store.

[TroglodyteScholar]

13. Expensive to make, much more flammable than gasoline, and explosive due to being under pressure n/t

[Fearless]

21. Actually it's not more unsafe...

It's an urban legend.

http://www.hydrogen-fc.com/2007/flammability-range-on-hydrogen-and-other-fuel/

[Posteritatis]

4. Panic! Panic! Panic! Ban! Ban! Ban! Kneejerk! Kneejerk! Kneejerk! (nt)

[FLPanhandle]

15. That's pretty much the response they have towards anything new. nt

[mike_c]

6. holy shit-- I was on vacation last week and missed this altogether unitl today....

Wow. Venter scores. This is biologically semi-trivial-- conceptually trivial, technically difficult-- but philosophically it's a home run and the Kentucky Derby all rolled up together with choirs of angels singing do-wop music. This is the future of biology. This is just the future, period. Can you imagine what it must have been like to read about the invention of the steam engine, or to live at the first glimmerings of the dawn of the industrial revolution? This is the beginning of the biological revolution.

:bounce:

[Duer 157099]

9. I'd say the beginning of the biological revolution

was the development of PCR

[madchick44]

12. Wonder if human cells will now be patented? nt

[Posteritatis]

19. One quarter of the human genome is already patented. (nt)

[Dover]

10. Only one scientist in the room without a vested interest....this has got to change.

We cannot allow the wolves to guard the henhouse and write policy.



Only one witness, Gregory Kaebnick, a bioethicist at the Hastings Center, a nonprofit that studies the ethics of biotechnology, could be said to be an outside observer of the synthetic biology industry.

“I was the only one on the panel who didn’t have a vested stake in it one way or the other. I think that’s probably a mistake,” Kaebnick told Wired.com. “The president’s panel will take it up, and they’ll probably bring in more perspectives.”

[madchick44]

14. Ventner never saw a gene he didn't want to patent.

[FLPanhandle]

16. He's hardly a scientist.

A "bioethicist" :rofl:

From the Hasting Institute website: Gregory Kaebnick received his Ph.D. (1998) and MS (1994) in philosophy from the University of Minnesota and his BA in religion from Swarthmore College (1986).

Philosophy and Religion major. I guess that makes him a science expert. No wonder he didn't have a stake in it, he probably didn't understand half the words.

[Posteritatis]

18. It's kind of depressing how most bioethicists have zero background in biology. (nt)

[Dover]

22. Unfortunate that most scientists don't have an ethics component in their training, so that

others don't need to be present to monitor them. Nonethical behavior is just as prevalent in the various fields of science as it is in banking, etc.
in large part because 'value' is so often measured monetarily first and foremost, all consequences to the planet or humanity be damned. Even an ethical scientist is up against this convoluted, systemic problem. A well rounded, holistic education and training could only improve the situation.

At any rate, I don't want 'big oil' to write energy policy for this country simply because they are 'the experts', would you? Or bankers to write finance law, or pharmaceutical corporations to write health care policy? This is what is happening with more and more frequency.

[Little Star]

11. kick