Horrace1

Horrace,Robert
ProfessorFlower
LifeUnlimited?
28February,2015
WinterTermEssay2
Intro:
In this essay, I am going to discusstheregulationofsyntheticbiology.Syntheticbiology
is an interdisciplinary branch of biologyrelatedtogeneticengineeringcombiningthedisciplines
of biotechnology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, systems biology, and biophysics.
I
begin by examining what regulatory practices others have recommended before presenting my
position
ArticleSummaries:
In the first article by Samuel, et al(2009), it talks mainly about regulations of synthetic
biology. Even though there is broad public and scientific support for synthetic biological
research, it isgenerallyaccepteditshouldoperateundersocialnorms(Samueletal2009para.1).
For example, it shouldnt unreasonably threaten the public or impose unacceptable social
burdens(Samuel et al 2009 para. 1). The articlestates,thechallengeforregulatorsinrelationto
synthetic life science is to devise a legislative and regulatory system that balances security and
safety risks to facilitate research without imposing unreasonable bureaucratic burdens on
scientistsandacademicfreedom.(Samueletal2009)
In the second article by Miller & Kershen (2012), says, building on the foundations of
molecular biology, biological chemistry, gene sequencing informatics, systems biology and

Horrace2

systems engineering, synthetic biology is not fundamentally new but involves the synergistic
combination of many areas of science and technology. It could offer scientists unprecedented
opportunities for innovation and better enable them to craft madetoorder microorganisms and
plants with improved abilities ofmanykindsforexample,toproducevaccines,cleanuptoxic
wastes, and obtain (or fix) nitrogen from the air (obviating the need for chemical
fertilizers)(Miller & Kershen 2009, para.12). Several organizations actively promote
biotechnology as an open source discipline, a sharing of genetic designs, systems and modular
components with no or minimal protectionofintellectualproperty(Miller&Kershen2009,para.
5). The authors note garage inventors and they compare them to Edison, Graham Bell, and
Fogarty(Miller & Kershen 2009, para. 6). The authors of this article ask, what will the federal
and other regulators do about garageinventor synthetic biologists who produce and test novel
plantsandmicroorganisms?(Miller&Kershen2012)
In the third article, it starts talking about a genetically modified innate brand of
potato.This potato is bruise resistant and has 5070% lessasparagine.Forthosewhodontknow
what asparagine is, it is a chemical that is converted into acrylamide. Acrylamide is a
presumptive carcinogen when it is heated to high temperatures. Because ofthebruiseresistance
and lower asparagine content, the innate potato has become an example of new genetic
engineering techniques that are more precise and versatile than ever. Well the article asks these
questions, How will the various regulatory agencies approach them as a matter of law and
regulation? What will be the regulatory costs, time, and effortrequiredtobringthemtomarket?
And, further out, how will regulatory agencies approachtheemergingfieldofsyntheticbiology,

Horrace3

which involves the design andconstructionofnewbiologicalcomponents,devices,andsystems,

sothatstandardizedbiologicalpartscanbemixedandassembled?
Response:
Regulating synthetic biology is easy and difficult. It is easy to regulate because it is a
science that is now being practiced and some people understand what it is being used for. It is
difficult because there are multiple factors regulation brings. There is the government, which is
the main obstacle synthetic biology faceswhenitcomestoregulatingit.Thereisreligion,which
they see it at a type of heresy becausetheysomehowthinkweareplayingGod.Nomatterwhat,
there are always going to be obstacles when it comes to regulating something, even if its a
science.
Throughout the years,regulatingscienceshasbecomeeasier.Sciencehassufferedagreat
deal through the years, either because of the people who dont understandscienceorbecauseof
the church oppressing the practice. Science has evolved and has branched out into multiple
disciplines,includingchemistry,biology,physics,andmore.
Back to regulation, by defining the root word, regulate, it means to control or
supervise(
something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and
regulations. So, if synthetic biology was regulated, then there will be rules that will control or
supervise the science, but because synthetic biology is a relatively new science, people dont
understand much of it and people want to either have it heavily regulated, have it lightly
regulated, have it not regulated at all, or have it banned. For a little while, I have read a few
articles about the statistics of how many people want it banned or regulated and a few articles
about synthetic biology. I dont remember which article it was, but it showed a statistic which

Horrace4

said over thirty percent of Americans want to ban synthetic biology until they understand it
more. I found this certain statistic interesting, because it is somewhat contradictory. If you ban
something, then researching the certain thing will be illegal and most the materials related to it
will be most certainly destroyed. I cant help but laugh at that because I find it ridiculous.
Banning something will not solveanyproblemwhatsoever.Regulatingisfarbetterthanbanning
because there can be potentially less problems to deal with. Regulating synthetic biology is a
tough thing to do because it is new, it is not easily understood by the public, and it is heavily
criticized. It is easier to regulate something that can potentially be put on the market. Science
cant be put on the market, but the materials the science can develop can. We have genetically
modified foods already ready to be used. We have rice that helps fight against vitamin A
deficiency, a potato with far less asparagine than a normal potato, and therearemorefoodsthat
are modified. In fact, by information of the whole foods market, ninetythree percent of US
canola are grown commerciallyincropsareGMOsasof2013andeightyeightpercentofallUS
corn grown commercial in crops are GMOs(Whole Foods Market 2014). It is surprising how
manyplantswearegrowingthatarebeinggrowncommercially.
The regulators can be a problem. Regulators are supposed to not be biased by anything,
including religion. These regulators cant regulate the science, but they can regulate the crop
productions and regulate what gets sold tothepublic.Thesepeoplewhodecideshowtoregulate
things usually work for the FDA, the USDA, or some other department/agency. Because the
employees of work for thesedepartments/agencies,theyareagentsofthestate,andbecausethey
are agents of the state, they must not bring any religious belief into their job. I say thisbecause
the first amendment has a separation of church and states, which means religion wont be

Horrace5

involved in the government and vice versa. It is very difficult to follow this part of the
amendment,butitisalsosimple.
What I think how synthetic biology should be regulatedisthatitshouldntbe.Thefoods
that are modified are already onthemarket,soregulatingthefoodshouldbeminiscule.Ithinkit
should be miniscule because the GMOs can be healthier than natural organicfoodsandtheyare
usually more affordable. The scienceisrelativelyknewanditshouldntbeheavilyregulatedand
products shouldnt be heavilyregulated.Everyoneinthisworldneedsfoodandweallshouldeat
toliveandnotlivetoeat.
I know most people are against GMOs and most of them dont know exactly what they
are. The people who do, they made protesting organizations against synthetic biology and
GMOs.We,aspeople,canbeidiotssometimes,butwearehumananditisinournature.
There thousands, maybe even millions of people starving every single day, and we are
worried about regulating the science and the products created because of thescience?Ifindthis
very ridiculous. We arethinkingofsolutionsanddoingnothingtoutilizeandputthesolutionsin
action. We need to take action and we need to notprocrastinate.Therearechildrenstarvingand
we need to help them and give them the foodandnutrientstheyneedtosurvive.Protestorsneed
to open their eyes and realize exactly what theyre doingandstartthinkingaboutthepeopleand
dont bring religious beliefs into something it is not supposed to be in. Religion has oppressed
science enough andsyntheticbiologyhasbeencreatingthingsforthegreatergood.Forexample,
becauseofthescience,wehavewheatthatcreatesamalariatreatingsubstanceinsteadofglucose
in order to save people who suffer from malaria. Let the science save people and regulate the
scienceandtheproductslater.

Horrace6

Conclusion:
Now that I have given my opinion to the articles, it is now your decision if we should
regulate synthetic biology.Shouldthefederalregulatorsandtheotherregulatorsheavilyregulate
the science, or should they lightly regulate it? Everything in this world is regulatedsomewhere.
Synthetic biology has a ways to go, but it has done so much already. We now have wheat that
produces treatment for malaria, a potato with less carcinogens, rice that has morebetacarotene,
andmore.Ihavegivenmyanswer,whatsayyou?

Horrace7

WorkCited:
Market, Whole Foods. "FAQs on GMOs."
Whole Foods Market
. Whole Foods Market IP. L.P.,
2015.Web.08Mar.2015.<http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/faqsgmos>.
Miller, Henry I., and Drew L. Kershen. "Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room."
Www.slate.com
.

The

Slate

Group,

2015.

Web.

08

Mar.

2015.

<
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/02/fda_regulation_of_gmos_give_
genetic_engineering_some_breathing_room.html
>.
Miller, Henry, and Drew Kershen. "Will Overregulation In Europe Stymie Synthetic Biology?"
Forbes
.

Forbes

Magazine,

29

Aug.

2012.

Web.

08

Mar.

2015.

<
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/08/29/willoverregulationineuropestymiesynt
heticbiology/
>.
Samuel, Gabrielle N., Michael J. Selgelid, and Ian Kerridge.
Managing the Unimaginable:
Regulatory Responses to the Challenges Posed by Synthetic Biology and Synthetic Genomics
.
Rep.1sted.Vol.10.N.p.:n.p.,2009.Print.