Synthetic biology: taking a look at a field in the making

This special issue assembles four articles and a commentary dealing with the emerging field of synthetic biology. “What’s in a name?,” Nature Biotechnology asked in a late 2009 feature. The responses of the twenty interviewed experts highlight that synthetic biology comprises many different projects, approaches and definitions. “If you ask five people to define synthetic biology, you will get six answers,” one of the interviewees states (p. 1073). In fact, the term synthetic biology is not new but about to celebrate its centenary; it was coined in 1912 by the French chemist Stéphane Leduc (de Lorenzo and Danchin, 2008). However, it recently gained publicity when selected as an umbrella term for a newly forming academic field. The First International Conference on Synthetic Biology (SB1.0) was held in 2004 and since then the term has rapidly gained ground in academia, business and policy circles. But what is synthetic biology? In 2005 the European Commission convened a high-level expert group to define and examine the new development. The report begins by defining synthetic biology as “the engineering of biology: the synthesis of complex, biologically based (or inspired) systems which display functions that do not exist in nature. This engineering perspective may be applied at all levels of the hierarchy of biological structures – from individual molecules to whole cells, tissues and organisms. In essence, synthetic biology will enable the design of ‘biological systems’ in a rational and systematic way” (European Commission, 2005: 5). With synthetic biology, the conceptual tools and language of engineering become the actual method for approaching biology so that engineering now is more than an analogy, as it was for genetic engineering (de Lorenzo and Danchin, 2008). Synthetic biology represents an interdisciplinary endeavour with contributions from biology, biotechnology, engineering and computing. Both based on the encyclopaedic knowledge of the post-genomic era and with the help of computer power, the challenge becomes “programming” standardised biological parts to create functional systems. Such “designed life,” for example, shall make it possible to produce new drugs, vaccines or biofuels, or to facilitate the bioremediation of toxic chemicals. The very first products of synthetic biology are approaching market reality but most applications might take time until they are suitable for commercial exploitation (Kwok, 2010). Although the field is unified by a name, some basic questions remain unanswered. For example, scientists disagree whether synthetic biology should be seen as a new development or as a convergence of older streams of scientific inquiry and practice. Is it really a paradigm change, as some claim, or is it just a rebranding of genetic or metabolic engineering? Is synthetic biology’s agenda about knowing and understanding (as is typical for science) or is it about doing and constructing (as is typical for engineering)? Does synthetic biology really offer the potential for incredible progress or is it just “hype” and a useful way to attract Sage PublicationS (www.sagepublications.com) Public underStanding of Science