Synthetic Life in Rockville
Jun 10, 2007 11:36 - 2 Comments
I hear some kids who grow up in Rockville complain that there’s just not much happening.>
But, there are big, global issues emerging right in our town. Some of them are literally epoch making, and touch on the core of what it means to be human. One place where issues like that come up all the time is the J. Craig Venter Institute across the street from Fallsgrove. Venter is the lead scientist who mapped the human genome. In 2002 he announced his intention to create artificial life.
It seems he is about to succeed. According to Australia’s The Age:
The US scientist who cracked the human genome is poised to create the world’s first man-made species, a synthetic microbe that could lead to an endless supply of biofuel. . . . It is part of an effort to create designer bugs to manufacture hydrogen and biofuels, as well as absorb carbon dioxide and other harmful greenhouse gases.
This has come to light because JCVI has applied for a patent on the genes for this organism.
For many, this raises a thorny set of questions:
- What are the implications of literally creating life?
- If it is ethically wrong to create life, do potential benefits sometimes outweigh that?
- If it is OK to create life, is it also OK for one person or organization to own the means of producing that life?
- What other implications will come to light in the future?
To its credit, JCVI has convened a panel of experts to examine such questions and others. In this particular case, they gave the green light.
This is just one example of how many important — even global — currents cross paths in our favorite town of Rockville.
It’s pretty interesting to be living here. There’s a lot going on.
Follow on Twitter
Since the US Supreme Court decided in 1980 that a living organism is patentable, society has been heading down this road. We can’t possibly figure out the worldwide implications of a new microbe by experimental means. I don’t think we’re capable of thinking of all the risks and determining their probability. We therefore have to trust experts, but it is most important that they not be able to gain financially from their decisions. Whenever this issue is philosophically debated, we always have more questions than answers.
It is distressing . . . though not surprising . . . that the >only mentions I can find of this important development is in Australian, UK, Canadian, and Iranian press. Maybe that will change over time as US sources notice.