Synthetic biology is the interdisciplinary area of engineering where life is revised, updated and streamlined to fit the needs of our modern world. A majority of the conceivable and imminent inventions revolve around the exploitation of bacteria and plants – relatively simple lifeforms whose genome we’ve familiarized with and whose biological pathways we can readily manipulate. However, as the study of genomics and proteomics progresses beyond the elemental lifeforms, we soon reach the inevitable: the engineering of the human race.
Evolution is driven by mistakes. As your genome is being copied, errors are bound to emerge in the produced sequence and mutations appear. The flawed, mutated sequence may be unsupportive of life as the disrupted codons (nucleotide-triplets coding for amino-acids) may code for essential amino-acids in a vital protein. In another outcome it may increase or reduce an individual’s fitness by slightly changing the functionality of a protein, for better or worse. This minute change in fitness is what drives evolution towards a perceived goal as individuals more fit to its current environment are more likely to survive and strive. One should distinguish that evolution has no inherent goal in itself, it is simply a mechanistic progression, there is no driver nor designer pointing in the right direction. However, the change is often insignificant and unpretentious in its expression, which is why evolution works ever so slowly. Through the ages, minute changes in the genome has resulted in conspicuous structures and organisms with remarkable functions and niches. Extremophilic bacteria like Cupriavidus metallidurans and Thermus aquaticus are making us question the definition of habitability due to their ability to thrive and live in seemingly uninhabitable places, and archaea like thermococcus gammatolerans is challenging our notion of survivability due to its ability to survive extreme amounts of radiation. The most fascinating structure of all is undoubtedly that of the brain, which ultimately has led to the development of advanced technology and culture.
Evolution has laid the groundworks on which our brain is built, however we can all recognize that it isn’t the sole mechanism in charge of our cognitive capabilities. The battle between nature and nurture was one of the most prevalent scientific disputes throughout the 20th century and it is, to some extent, still ongoing. The debate has engaged psychologists, sociobiologists, geneticists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and not to forget political activists. With radical simplification applied, the two prevalent ideological camps were Social Darwinists versus Marxists, battling over determinism or lack thereof. Both extremes were indeed represented in history in the form of Nazism and Communism, both showcasing a grave lack of scientific reasoning but an ambitious amount of political trickery. Today we’ve settled dead-center. There is no biological determinism and our brain is highly plastic, however genes do affect our personality and cognitive ability in a statistical manner. The traits and abilities of identical twins are not completely identical, nor do they completely differ. Genes do affect your neural structure, but so does learning and sensory input. Culture, technology, personality and morality are all a consequence of our cognitive abilities and are therefore partly a consequence of our genes. Genetic engineering may allow us to enhance and surpass evolution and it is therefore of extreme relevance to discuss the implications which genetic engineering may have on the future of humanity.
Many genes are identified to play a part in the development of mental illnesses and variations such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These illnesses are shown to be hereditary and there is a great economic and social interest in eliminating them. But should we? Consider the amount of creative geniuses whose psychological diagnosis is that of a lunatic, and what implications a complete removal of insanity would have on our culture. There would be no Vincent Van Gogh’s nor Charles Darwin’s nor Isaac Newton’s, nor would there be any Charles Manson’s. Do the benefits outweigh the harm done to our society, culture and humanity? It would be a mistake to befuddle the societal and individual concerns when operating on a global scale, although we shouldn’t dichotomize the two when there’s an apparent connection. Until we fully understand the underlying implications of mental illnesses (perhaps more fittingly referred to as mental variations) and the accompanying ethical concerns we should tread carefully.
It is more conceivable to imagine how the physical body may be engineered in ways with increased benefit to the individual and seemingly without jeopardizing the interests of society. Genetic predisposition for muscularity or heightened metabolism may elude you from training or a strict diet whilst maintaining a desirable physique, and who wouldn’t want that? New standards would be implemented regarding physical appearance and physical performance, but what would the aftermath be? Depending on the costs and availability, visible socioeconomic classes would arise. Companies would surely capitalize on the worldwide market, giving rise to a new form of wealth, namely health. Is a future where the discrepancy between the rich and poor is emphasized and further extended sought after? Again, do the benefits outweigh the harm done to our society, culture and humanity?
The aforementioned seemingly obvious inquiries have complicated and profound ethical concerns. Similar outcomes are to be expected when discovering the implications of synthetic biology and genetic engineering not only in humans, but also in bacteria, plants and archaea. Therefore, we at iGEM Lund are trying to thoroughly explore and recognize the ramifications of future research within the field of synthetic biology to ensure prosperity in a future of genetic engineering.
– Erik Hartman, the iGEM Lund team
Science for everyone 