Meeting report: synthetic biology Jamboree for undergraduates.

While most of us have been following news in the fields of genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and maybe even systems biology, a new field may have escaped our attention. The field of synthetic biology (the name is derived from an analogy to synthetic chemistry) has recognized itself as a ‘‘field’’ only since about 2002. Synthetic biology has gotten some high-profile attention recently (e.g., Ferber, 2004; Hasty et al., 2002; Hopkin, 2004; Nature Staff, 2004a, b; Pennisi, 2003; Zak et al., 2003), but most people are not aware the field even exists. Synthetic biologists apply engineering principles to genomic circuits to construct small biological devices. The Jamboree, as it was affectionately called, was the culmination of a summer of undergraduate research on five campuses across the United States. The participants shared data, frustrations, lessons learned, and plans for the future. The entire weekend was, to some extent, a pyramid turned upside down. Normally, new fields in biology are explored first by postdocs and graduate students under the watchful eyes of their Primary Investigator (PI) mentors. This National Science Foundation (NSF)–supported Jamboree featured undergraduates (some having just completed one year of college) who were pushing the boundaries of a field so new, its name is subject to debate. This report will highlight some of the interesting research conducted by undergraduates during the summer and early fall of 2004. Teams of undergraduates spent 10 weeks of their summers blending biology with computer science, engineering, and chemistry (Figure 1). As is often true of young students, many were oblivious of the significance of their efforts before the Jamboree. Only after sharing their stories did they begin to appreciate the magnitude of their summer’s efforts. Each group of students had been given a one-phrase directive (design and build a genetically encoded finite state machine), and over the summer, they designed, modeled, built, and tested their constructions. The most interesting presentations were those made by undergraduates. One team had more senior people present, and you could tell they were less candid and less enthusiastic. When the undergraduates spoke, they had a sheen of freshness and personal investment that was infectious and exhilarating. The teams were composed of diverse sets of students, with only two self-identified as biology majors with previous lab experience. The educational goals of this NSF-funded program were varied and vague: to introduce students to a new field; to encourage them to stay in this field; to increase excitement about research; and to foster cross-disciplinary education and collaboration. Although these goals are difficult to define and assess, they are exactly what the National Research Council’s publication Bio2010 stated the future of biomedical research requires to bring success in the future and a more diverse population to biology (National Research Council, 2003).