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...

Eric Hoffman; Friends of the Earth

Eric has a background in sustainable agriculture policy but is increasingly involved in critical analysis of synthetic biology.

Fionn asked what the term "synthetic biology" brings to mind?

FotE takes the precautionary principle; need proof that tech is safe before continuing. Proponents need to show certain levels of safety and ability to mitigate risk. Such a system doesn't exist in U.S. Eric thought Europe was slightly better in this regard. But insufficient safety tests.

Data 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Eric said that the lack of success was partially due to an outdated view of genetics, i.e. the "one gene causes one trait" view.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. We don't want land that's in short supply for essential agriculture to 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 [our lab uses containment level 1].

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, life cycle analysis of the organisms. 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?"