Team:Edinburgh/Interviews

This year, Edinburgh aimed to go beyond mere surveys, and engage with actual participants in the debate around synthetic biology and genetic modification. To that end, we conducted interviews with people representing several organisations.

The questions we asked were partially prepared in advance, but also partially a response to what the interviewee said.

Contents 1 Eric Hoffman; Friends of the Earth 2 Murdo Macdonald and Glenn Walker; Church of Scotland

Eric Hoffman; Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth is an international environmental group.

Eric is based in the U.S. and has a background in sustainable agriculture policy but is increasingly involved in critical analysis of synthetic biology. He was interviewed via Skype video, by our team members Yassen Abbas and Fionn Tynan-O'Mahony.

Fionn asked what FotE thinks about synthetic biology.

FotE accepts the precautionary principle: we need proof that a technology is safe before proceeding with it. Proponents need to show a certain level of safety and the ability to mitigate risk. Such a regulatory system doesn't exist in the U.S. though Eric thought Europe was slightly better in this regard. But there are insufficient safety tests.

Furthermore, test data is being kept as confidential business info; so we can't see what safety research has been done. We go forward and hope nothing bad happens; if a problem does come up it may be too late to do anything, e.g. if something escapes the lab.

Yassen asked about the future of biotechnology.

Eric said that past promises were overhyped; biotech failed to deliver in most areas, though there has been some success in medicine.

Eric argued that biotech has not benefited the public in agriculture; the only commercialised traits are those that promote pesticide use. Eric noted that the same companies often own the chemicals and the bio. Increased yields do not seem to have been achieved by genetic engineering.

Yassen asked why biotech hasn't delivered as much as it promised.

Eric was concerned that biotech progress or technology in general was driven by concerns about money and not concerns about benefits to humanity. There is a lack of a democratic approach to determine what technologies are developed.

Eric said that the lack of success was partially due to an outdated view of genetics, i.e. the "one gene causes one trait" view. Modern geneticists now know this is too simplistic, genes form a complicated network of interactions. There is a need to learn more about the systems before commercialisation.

Fionn asked about biorefineries - using agricultural waste to make products like sweeteners, vitamins, etc.

Eric said the first thing to consider is what the agricultural waste would otherwise have been used for; it may have been broken down and put back into the soil, which is important for soil health and prevention of soil erosion. So taking this biomass and putting it into a biorefinery might not be the best use of it.

There was a discussion about the biomass-based economy (e.g. to replace petroleum etc). There are issues in global justice. Eric noted that synthetic biology is mostly done in the U.S. and Europe, whereas most biomass was located in the global south (South America, Africa). This sets up a situation where the exploitation of the global south by the north is likely. Land that's in short supply for essential agriculture should not be diverted to other things.

Fionn suggested that biotechnology could be of use to the south but it would depend on who controls the technology. Eric agreed that this was a key issue.

Eric said synthetic biology was often a solution in search of a problem; we have organisms that can do X, Y and Z; what can we do with them?

Yassen asked whether biomass for use in biotech could be sustainably sourced in the future.

Eric said he was not confident. Due to predictions of increased population as well as water shortages and other shortages e.g. fertiliser, he said land is likely to be needed mostly for agriculture. He sees sustainable biomass sourcing as incompatible with large scale commercialisation of biotech based on that biomass (e.g. production of biofuels); though there might be possibilities for small-scale biotech. He does not see biotech as a very likely way of achieving a replacement for petroleum.

Yassen asked about regulations for the biotech industry.

Eric said we need to have strong containment for synthetic organisms. He thought containment level 2 might be insufficient and these organisms might need to be placed in containment level 3. [For the record, our lab uses containment level 1, the weakest level of containment.]

Eric noted that Europe has stronger regulations; he thought the U.S. regulations were very badly outdated.

He recommends improved democratic involvement of communities that are involved, e.g. communities where the work is done, or communities otherwise impacted (e.g. because they are a biomass source).

There need to be safeguards for community health and worker health, since the workers in the labs are on the frontlines.

Yassen asked what role synthetic biology should have in food production in the future.

Eric said little to no role. He said conventional techniques, proven to work and proven to have high yields, are better, especially if they are developed in a fair and sustainable way, instead of new technologies that benefit just a few people.

Fionn asked what Friends of the Earth would do if biorefineries started to exist on a large scale.

Eric said they would fight for community involvement, risk assessments for health and environment, and life-cycle analysis of the organisms. This means: what happens if they escape? On a commercial scale, organisms are certain to escape. Can the DNA transfer laterally to other organisms?

He does not envisage a future with biorefineries containing (genetically modified organisms) in people's back gardens; government regulations won't allow this.

Fionn asked about the limits of what's sensible in synthetic biology.

Eric said synthetic biology has a future in prokaryotes, but eukaryotes (and especially multi-celled organisms) are too complicated. He mentioned attempts to improve the human genome via synthetic biology. He foresees some people trying this unsuccessfully, possibly causing harm in the process.

Yassen asked what approaches (generally) should be used to solve the world's problems.

Eric said:

1. Reduce consumption.
2. Invest in sustainable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal
3. Invest in sustainable agriculture

He sees the solutions as coming from improved systems (i.e. ways humans organise themselves) instead of improved technology. For example, hunger is not currently caused because we can't produce enough food, but rather by problems of distribution. These problems are social, political and economic: who owns the food, and who profits from it?

People go hungry because they can't afford the food, not because the food isn't there. So suggesting genetic modification to increase yields doesn't address the root cause of the problem.

If we must invest in new technologies, Eric suggests we invest in technologies that are inherently less risky than biotechnology, e.g. sustainable energy sources and technologies of energy efficiency.

Yassen asked about the relationship between regulation and technological progress. He suggested countries with a relaxed regulatory regime would make progress faster.

Eric said that regulation is a burden if the only focus is profit; but if we also value people and the environment, government policy has an important role to ensure technology develop in a sustainable and just way.

Fionn asked about what motivates corporations.

Eric said while there were examples of corporations deliberately behaving badly, in many cases there is merely a short-sighted focus on profit. He is suspicious of a worldview where profits are regarded as proof that something is valuable to society. But he does not believe synthetic biologists are bad people.

Yassen asked Eric for advice to members of iGEM teams generally for their future careers.

Eric said we should think long and hard about ecological questions (e.g. life-cycle analysis) and safety, as well as issues of how technology will impact the world. He suggests that bench scientists often don't have time to think about these questions.

He suggested we ask: "Is this the only way, and is this the best way to get there?"

Murdo Macdonald and Glenn Walker; Church of Scotland

The Church of Scotland is a presbyterian church, and the most common religious denomination in Scotland; in the 2001 census, 42% of Scots said they belong to the Church of Scotland.

Murdo and Glenn are both involved in the Church's Society, Religion and Technology Project (SRTP). Murdo trained as a molecular biologist and Glenn as a chemical pharmacologist. They were interviewed in person, by our team members Fionn Tynan-O'Mahony and Yassen Abbas.

Fionn mentioned that we were interested in whether science simply drags society along, or whether it's more of a two-way progress.

Murdo said this was exactly what the SRTP was set up for, 40 years ago.

Yassen asked what their jobs involved.

Murdo explained that his full-time job is as policy officer for the Church. His work is overseen by a committee, which Glenn chairs; however Glenn's role is unpaid.

40 years ago, the Church saw that the growing oil industry in Scotland would have an increasing impact on Scottish society; and the SRTP was set up to look at the issues raised by technology, and help the Church address issues raised by science. It also helps the Church decide what it should say about ethical issues related to science. Because of its position, the Church often has an opportunity to speak out.

Over the last 40 years, the SRTP has looked at many issues. Some issues that were of concern are no longer of concern. Other issues have remained on the agenda throughout this period, for example nuclear power. And new issues, like genetic engineering, have arisen.

Fionn asked what the term "synthetic biology" meant to them.

Murdo noted that the term didn't really exist when he was a researcher, but he became aware of it when he took up his position as policy officer. He regards it as biology meeting engineering: a more ambitious form of genetic modification.

Yassen asked what role biotechnology will play in the future.

Murdo said it had a huge potential and would have many roles. There are lots of ways the technology can be used. As an example, he mentioned the production of anti-HIV drugs in a genetically modified tobacco plant.

However, he noted society might not always accept the way science wants to go. He noted that there was never a real debate on genetic modification in the United States; it simply happened. When the technology came to Europe, it was seen as an American imposition. Monsanto and others "played a bad hand" and lost public support, and this led to a harsher regulatory regime. This, however, is slowly changing.

Glenn suggested that biotechnology is used more widely than is commonly known or believed. The public might be quite surprised if they knew the extent of it all. He noted the potential for significant growth in the industry, for example in the form of spinoff companies from university research.

Fionn explained our cellulose-degrading phage system, and the creation of biorefineries. He mentioned the possibility of producing food-related products, and asked Glenn and Murdo what reaction they had.

Murdo mentioned that we often have a simplistic view of biology, which meant that the engineering approach didn't always work. However, he suggested that having enzymes in close proximity, as opposed to a soup where things just bump into each other randomly, made a certain amount of logical sense. He suggested it might simply not work.

In principle, he said there were potential benefits, but also potential pitfalls.

Glenn said degrading cellulose sounds good if the cellulose is simply a waste product. However, he wondered what new waste products would be produced in the process, and whether it would involve new problems. This would have to be examined in a risk assessment.

Murdo noted that alien species often have an unexpected impact on the environment, and we have a bad track record of introducing problem organisms into new places. Avoiding this is an important issue for synthetic biology.

Yassen asked what questions the Church would have if biorefineries were actually implemented on a large scale.

Murdo mentioned the need for risk assessments. He drew upon his own experience as a scientist and said that scientists, while knee-deep in the actual work, often don't consider the broader implications of what they're doing, since they're concentrating on getting things working. They need to take a step back to consider whether the project is worthwhile, and what the risks and benefits are.

Glenn said he would want to know about the business plan and what the economic impacts would be.

Yassen asked if there would be immediate concerns.

Murdo was most worried about accidental or deliberate release of the organisms. He noted that "killer genes" designed to stop an organism surviving outside the lab don't always work. He noted the possibility for genetic exchange between the lab organisms and wild organisms.

Glenn suggested any such project would require a major public relations exercise. He noted people are also sensitised to words like "E. coli" and "virus".

Fionn asked about regulations.

Murdo was doubtful of self-regulation. He saw legislation at a Scottish level or even UK level as unlikely; rather, he saw legislation driven by the European Union as more plausible. But because the technology moves so quickly, legislation often is outdated.

Glenn said scientists don't like being regulated, that they have a natural aversion to it. But it is necessary.

Yassen asked whether synthetic biology is "playing God".

Murdo said synthetic biology did not put us on a par with God; it was hardly the same thing as creating life de novo. He noted our dependence on other parts of the global ecosystem. We shouldn't be too proud; rather we must have a degree of humility.

Fionn asked if there is a dichotomy between science and religion.

Murdo said this was overplayed. There are areas of commonality but also areas where the two forces speak in different languages. He said science can examine "how" questions (how things work) but some of the "why" questions, the "meaning of life" questions, cannot be fully answered by science. He said they are not in conflict but not fully in tune with each other either.

Glenn said there was a popular perception that religion is dead and science answers all. The Church does not share this view.

Murdo said that in ancient times, the Pope spoke and what he said was automatically seen as true. Now science speaks and what it says is automatically seen as true. But he said neither position is correct. He said that public faith in science has been fairly strong, though has perhaps seen a lessening in recent years. People are questioning if science has all the answers.

Fionn asked about the attitudes of synthetic biologists towards the other species in nature.

Murdo recommended humility, but also not trying to force biology into the box of mechanical machines. Biological organisms are not really machines; they are flexible, able to change.

Glenn said the Venters of the world are very influential and will gain a significant following, but agreed with Murdo that humility is called for, not an aggressive attitude to nature.

Yassen said, in the recent history of science, many churches (especially in America) have taken a dim view of things like IVF and genetic engineering. He asked how open the Church of Scotland is to new innovations in science.

Murdo said that the Church's attitude is really quite positive (for example, in its recent report on the subject), and the Church sees many potential benefits. The antagonistic view of science that is sometimes put forward from a religious perspective is not always helpful. The SRTP has consciously brought in people who have a scientific background; it has explicitly brought together theologians and scientists to talk in a reasoned manner.

He said in many cases technology is inherently neutral; it can be used positively or abused. This is true of synthetic biology as well.

Glenn said the Church of Scotland is a broad church with a range of views and opinions.

Fionn said a lot of technologies promised to solve the world's environmental problems. He asked what the real solutions were.

Murdo said biotechnology might be useful, along with many other things. We need to reduce, reuse, recycle. Humanity is living beyond its means. Biotechnology might be one tool we use to ameliorate these problems.

Yassen asked what advice they would give to people considering synthetic biology as a career.

Murdo quoted the mottos of IBM and Google; and some verses found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke:

"Think. Don't be evil. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."