The Day After: Synthetic Cell Gets Widespread Scrutiny

(May 21) -- Only a day after renowned geneticist J. Craig Venter announced the successful creation of a synthetic genome, bioengineers, ethicists, religious leaders and politicians are weighing in about the implications of the news -- and whether Venter's bacterium is as revolutionary as he's suggesting.

Venter and a team of scientists have been working on engineered genomes for decades and spent three years on this project, which yielded a man-made genome inside a bacterial shell.

The innovation spurred a torrent of excitement among those working in synthetic biology and is being touted as the first step toward myriad custom-made organisms, including synthetic biofuels and better vaccines.

"This is an important step, we think, both scientifically and philosophically," Venter said this week. "It's certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works."

But despite Venter's bullish pronouncements, his project isn't quite life in a test tube. Combining man-made DNA with an all-natural bacterium isn't the same thing as creating new life, according to bioengineer James Collins.

"Imagine that bioengineers could program genes to grow into a fully functioning heart," he told Business Week. "If you transplanted that into someone, the recovered patient wouldn't be a synthetic individual, just a very lucky person."

And scientists who don't work with Venter's team are cautioning that it could be decades before much comes of the research.

The discovery is "a landmark," according to Dr. Paul Freemont, an expert in synthetic biology at Imperial College, London. But, he adds, "it is not clear if this approach will work for larger and more complex genomes or for transplantation in different bacterial cells."

Disagreements also persist over whether the technology could -- eventually -- pose a serious threat to human health and safety. But most ethicists agree that, as synthetic biology progresses, regulations need to be tightened.

"This kind of biology makes it possible, in the wrong hands, to create deadly pathogens, and in the future it will call for strong regulations," David Magnus, director of the Center for Bioethics, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Venter is a likely candidate for a Nobel prize, according to professor Julian Savulescu at Oxford's Center for Practical Ethics. That said, "if [the research] goes in another direction, there will be no Nobel prizes to give because there will be no people to give them."

The government is already taking steps to examine the milestone finding, with President Barack Obama asking the federal bioethics commission to "consider the potential medical, environmental, security and other benefits of this field of research, as well as any potential health, security or other risks."

And for some, like Vatican bioethics official Monsignor Rino Fisichella, the development ought to serve as a reminder that there's only one true creator -- and he's not working in a science lab.

"We look at science with great interest. But we think above all about the meaning that must be given to life," Fisichella said in a statement. "We can only reach the conclusion that we need God, the origin of life."

Amid all the debate, Venter's work is quickly moving ahead. His team of 23 scientists is already collaborating on a $600 million deal with Exxon to create synthetic algae-based biofuels.