Peter
Novecosky, OSTArtificial life announced
A team of geneticists in the United States announced last week that they had created a living artificial cell.
Dr. Craig Venter and his associates announced on May 20 that they had made the first synthetic life form, a bacterium with DNA sequenced entirely by computer — in other words, a human-designed life form. The news was officially published in the journal Science.
The journal explained that Venter and his associates “describe the stepwise creation of a bacterial chromosome and the successful transfer of it into a bacterium, where it replaced the native DNA. Powered by the synthetic genome, that microbial cell began replicating and making a new set of proteins.” Venter’s team has been working on this project for 15 years. His achievement is beyond the understanding — or imagination — of most non-scientists.
The reaction of the world media was diverse. The Financial Times headline read, “Scientists create synthetic life form with a computer and four bottles of chemicals.” The Wall Street Journal noted, “Scientists create synthetic organizm.” The New York Times was more subtle: “Synthetic bacterial genome takes over a cell, researchers report.” The Economist in London took the opposite approach: “And man made life: the first artificial organism and its consequences.”
What Venter and his team did has been described as “the synthesizing of the largest-ever piece of DNA.” His team did not create an organism from the ground up, but used the existing cell of another bacterium. The synthesized DNA then took over the cell and began replicating itself. It was not the creation of an entirely synthetic organism. Venter himself described his team’s achievement as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”
Scientist David Baltimore described Venter’s achievement as “a technological tour de force,” but he rejected the claim that Venter had created life. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,” he told The New York Times. For those who saw this achievement as proof that the need for God is eliminated, the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano emphasized that scientists had not created life, but had “substituted one of its engines.” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, “This was not the creation of a life form ex nihilo, nor even from entirely non-organic materials. These researchers used an existing cell and the catalytic agent of yeast in conducting their experiment. Thus, this hardly extinguishes the argument ‘that life requires a special force or power to exist.’ ”
Venter, who previously worked on the Genome Project, made no claim to be “playing God.” He explained that the world’s first synthetic cell invented by his team was more a re-creation of existing life, changing one simple type of bacterium into another, rather than a new life form “built from scratch.”
Concern is now being expressed about what this new development will lead to. Venter listed some positive things that could be accomplished. He said he would like to try to make bacteria to produce fuel, or to use in making better vaccines, or to design algae that can vacuum up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. “This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do,” Venter told a news conference.
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Italian television May 21 that as long as synthetic cells were used “toward the good, to treat pathologies, we can only be positive” about their development. However, if they are used in ways that offend human dignity, “then our judgment would change.” .
Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the Italian bishops’ conference, told Italian news agencies that the development of the first synthetic cell was a “further sign of human intelligence, which is a great gift of God.” However, with intelligence comes responsibility. Therefore, any intellectual or scientific advancement “must always measure up to an ethical standard.”
US President Barack Obama has asked the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look at the implication of the new development. “In its study, the commission should consider the potential medical, environmental, security, and other benefits of this field of research, as well as any potential health, security or other risks,” he wrote. “Further, the commission should develop recommendations about any actions the federal government should take to ensure that America reaps the benefits of this developing field of science while identifying appropriate ethical boundaries and minimizing identified risks.”
In Canada, the National Farmers Union noted that the new science could lead to worrisome, long-term consequences. “This new technology raises serious concerns about who controls it, what it will be used for, and its potential impact,” NFU president Terry Boehm said in a news release.
“We cannot imagine the implications of synthetic-life technology,” he added. “All too often farmers and nature bear the brunt of the exploitive potential of these new technologies.” He gave as examples the impact of genetically modified plants and synthetic chemicals such as PCBs and DDT. “We need to very carefully consider . . . the regulations, ethics and moral questions raised by interfering with nature,” he said. “Agriculture has always tried to work with nature. It succeeds the best when it works with nature. Now we’re creating something outside of that.”
He said the NFU will lobby the Canadian government to ensure strong regulations are in place to protect the environment. “I really can’t imagine what will flow from this science,” he said. “This is something that can reproduce itself and there will be no natural checks and balances.”
The new development has great potential in the hands of good scientists. But not all scientists, entrepreneurs or political leaders have the best of intentions. The road ahead is unclear and the actions of a few will affect the lives of all.
 |
|