Aggregated News
The Inter-Academy Panel, a network of the world’s science academies including our own Royal Society, today issued a statement on synthetic biology. A few years ago, biologists in the higher branches of the Royal Society would claim that SynBio didn't merit attention – it was seen as either rebranded molecular biology or messy, dysfunctional engineering. Now, these institutions have woken up to its novelty not because of the science, but because of a set of concerns about regulation. The journal nature has seen fit to grant it a special issue this week.
SynBio has always skated along what Drew Endy calls the "half-pipe of doom", between a controlled biological utopia and an exploding biological disaster. Its enthusiasts, Endy included, make grand claims for the power of engineered biological machines and parts, bespoke genomes and xenonucleic acid (xDNA) to both create and solve major problems. The reality is likely to be more mundane, but the untold hype and terror have been allowed to shape the debate.
The academies’ statement, and its accompanying comment piece in Nature (probably paywalled, sorry)...
SynBio has always skated along what Drew Endy calls the "half-pipe of doom", between a controlled biological utopia and an exploding biological disaster. Its enthusiasts, Endy included, make grand claims for the power of engineered biological machines and parts, bespoke genomes and xenonucleic acid (xDNA) to both create and solve major problems. The reality is likely to be more mundane, but the untold hype and terror have been allowed to shape the debate.
The academies’ statement, and its accompanying comment piece in Nature (probably paywalled, sorry)...
