Synthetic biology and the environment

Current and near-term commercial and industrial applications concern mainly the pharmaceutical, chemical, agricultural and energy sectors. They aim at ‘creating micro-organisms that synthesise products for fuels, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, flavourings and fragrances’ (CBD, 2015). For instance, microbes (e.g.Escherichia coli), yeast and microalgae are engineered to produce alternatives to naturally occurring or petroleum-based molecules. So far, notable examples include the engineering of yeast that synthesises artemisinin (a drug used to treat malaria), pharmaceuticals (e.g. insulin), biofuels (e.g. produced by algae) or flavourings (e.g. vanillin). Other potential applications in development in these sectors include the production of antibiotics, bacteriophages (viruses infecting potentially harmful bacteria) and biomaterials, as well as waste processing and water purification (SEP, 2016).

Seen by many of its proponents as an attempt to ‘design life according to humanity’s needs’ (Engelhard, 2016), synthetic biology could have potentially huge impacts on society, the economy, the environment and even life as we know it. Genome pioneer Craig Venter claims that synthetic organisms ‘are going to potentially create a new industrial revolution if we can really get cells to do the production we want’ (BBC, 2010). In 2012, the World Economic Forum in Davos listed synthetic biology as an area that is likely to have a ‘major impact’ on the world economy in the future (World Economic Forum, 2012). The market for synthetic biology products and applications was estimated at USD 4.4 billion in 2017 and is expected to reach USD 13.9 billion by 2023 (BCC Research, 2018).

Compared with more established genetic modification techniques, however, many aspects of synthetic biology are entirely novel and cross-cutting in nature. Consequently, it remains very difficult to assess precisely the overall impact for Europe. At the EU level, synthetic biology is expected to provide new responses to societal challenges relating to health and well-being; resource efficiency, climate change and energy; sustainable agriculture and forestry and food security; and environmental sustainability. For example, synthetic biology could ‘provide innovative solutions for the conversion of our current unsustainable fossil-based industries into sustainable and competitive bio-based industries for bio-products (e.g. chemicals, polymers) and bioenergy, for new antibiotics and vaccines, and new diagnostics and treatments for cancer and rare diseases’ (EC, 2015).

As with previous controversies around nanotechnologies or biofuels, much will depend on the socio-political acceptance of synthetic biology itself. There are currently many ethical and safety concerns around this emerging field, which are well illustrated by exploring its potential environmental implications.

At the international level, synthetic biology was identified by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity as a ‘new and emerging issue’ in 2012. At its 11th meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity decided to urge Parties to take a precautionary approach when addressing threats of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity posed by organisms, components and products resulting from synthetic biology. Countries have recognised the global dimension of this issue, as organisms and effects could easily spread across borders. Regulatory authorities around the world are considering the social, ethical and environmental implications of the gene drive system. In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) commissioned a ‘broad assessment of the current state of science and policy around synthetic biology techniques as they relate to biodiversity’ (IUCN, 2018).

At the EU level, the independent Scientific Committees on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), and on Consumer Safety (SCCS) have stated in their 2014 opinion that, for the foreseeable future (10 years), ‘current GMO risk assessment requirement and approaches remain applicable’ but that new developments may require adapting existing methods used for risk and safety assessments (SCENIHR-SCHER-SCCS, 2014). Challenges would include the integration of modified cells into or with living organisms, future developments of autonomous modified cells, use of non-standard biochemical systems in living cells increased speed of modifications by new technologies and an evolving ‘do-it-yourself biology’ among the citizen science community.