Man-made life
The biggest story in science last week had to be the announcement of the ‘creation of the first synthetic life form’. This is a bit of an elaboration of the truth in order to make a good headline (see last post for more examples of this), as the only synthetic bit was the genome of the bacteria, but let’s not belittle the achievement!
Dr Venter and his team say that they will be able to engineer bacteria that could benefit mankind by carrying out the breakdown of waste or clearing up carbon dioxide emissions. Some opposers of the breakthrough say that Venter is ‘playing God’, others are worried about what happens if these bacteria ‘escape’ and pass their artificial genome onto other bacteria, or if this technology gets into the wrong hands and is used to create bio-weapons.
There are many applications of this story when teaching biology. The actual technique used, at a basic level, is easy enough for GCSE students to understand and is a great application of their knowledge of DNA and chromosomal structure. The PowerPoint is an example of this. It shows the students how the procedure was carried out, testing their understanding of genetics along the way.
It is also useful when talking about the Human Genome Project as Venter’s team had to sequence the genome of the bacteria first before they could re-create its DNA from synthetic bases. Now we know the human genome – will it soon be possible to create synthetic human cells, maybe even artificial organs?
There is also opportunity for a debate on the ethics of this new procedure. Scientists can now create bacteria with a genome of their design. Is this an exciting step into the future or a frightening step too far? This page has some interesting viewpoints on this.
The successful outcome by Craig Venter’s lab is not surpsrising given the technologies needed to clone genes and other such biotech has existed for a while already. The ecologist/evolutionary biologist in me is concerned about the unpredictable risks of introducing new genes into the environment. Native bacteria can be transformed by incorporating these synthetic genes into their genome potentially giving them properties that could cause disease or allow them to outcompete other native bacteria. This could change the landscape of an ecosystem.
On the other hand, there may be benefits of such engineered life as mentioned in the article.
I hope the world is watching. I hope there are enough scientifically literate citezens to make informed decisions regarding legislation of such technology, where needed.
I guess that is where the science teachers, such as myself come into the picture.
Good point Steve – makes me think of the quote from Jurassic Park (a film that I have used a lot in teaching): “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”. It seems that Venter is less oncerned than you about this potential minefield. You can see what he has to say in this interview.
I totally agree that it is vital that students are aware of how new technology is being used and how it could possibly impact their lives, and the decisions they make in the future. That’s why it is so important that educators are up-to-date with what is happening in the world and incorporate these things into their lessons, instead of relying on what specifications tell them to teach, which become outdated as soon as they are published.