Dr. Brian Ellis

1. Do you think synthetic organisms should be released into the wild?

Policies about informing the public have already been approved for wine, GMO crops but were not actually labeled. If the government encouraged labeling from the start, the stigma around GMOs cold have been avoided because people could have believed there was nothing fundamentally wrong with GMO. Now, the public is not sure who to believe. Although, there could be a backlash if people admit it is not labeled because it would look suspicious.

2. What standards would you recommend for their release?

Careful test for environment & health effects. No mechanism for testing long term effects. No labeling no idea who eats what. Willing to accept risk? Put it out can’t take it back. Is there lateral gene transfer? Not necessarily problem but always in public’s mind. Another example is with antifreeze in weeds or anti-biotic resistance. This is difficult because the environment is not always pristine. Heavily modified GMO crops have led to a change in the landscape associated with a shift in agriculture. Furthermore, transgenic yeast might auto-compete wild stock and change the ecological balance. Is it catastrophe? I believe nature is more flexible. Species go extinct each year. Are we moving towards a good or bad?

3. What challenges are there in terms of attaining public acceptance?

Openness. Perspective change. I myself do not believe GMOs are so dangerous anymore but I think kids and grandkids are more paranoid. There needs to be a discussion of biotechnology. A willingness to accept the unknown. Risk-benefit analysis. For instance, can modern cell phones cause cancer? I love my iphone but there needs to be public decision making power and encouragement to help the public participate. An example is with Mansanto anti-aphid potatoes which went very open to the public. MacDonald’s faced public rejection and the marketplace was pressured to force the GMO out of the market. Also, there is not a guarantee but still best strategy that media likes news-worthy stories. This means that the more alarming and seemingly exaggerating benefits may cause the media to do what they want. What would they do with first source information?

4. What future directions do you see for synthetic biology?

Enormous potential. New organs, limbs and far more specialized medical diagnostics and treatments but bring more questions. Whose cells? Foreign DNA? Self-perception? Cyborg? A lot of things will change but only when they are accepted. Perhaps people will accept changes if it benefits them directly.

5. Do you think we should be rewriting the code of life?

I don’t think life is a static code. We’re just making another version. No sample is the same. Code of life is organic. But, public perceives life as static and don’t want it to change. We need to engage the public on the real issues.