Abstract
In this short contribution we explore the historical roots of recent synthetic approaches in biology and try to assess their real potential, as well as identify future hurdles or the reasons behind some of the main difficulties they currently face. We suggest that part of these difficulties might not be just the result of our present lack of adequate technical skills or understanding, but could spring directly from the nature of the biological phenomenon itself. In particular, if life is conceived as autonomy in open-ended evolution, which would help to explain the highly complex and dynamic organization of the simplest known organisms (i.e., genetically-instructed cellular metabolisms), external synthetic implementations of such systems, or interventions on them, are bound to interfere with some of their characteristic transformation processes, both at the ontogenetic and phylogenetic scales. In any case, this will prove very revealing and productive, technologically and scientifically speaking, since the knowledge gathered from those implementations/interventions will be extremely valuable in establishing our capacities and limitations to fully comprehend, utilize, and expand the living domain as we know it today.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For our criticism of some of these classical views and models, by Maturana and Varela, Rosen, Gánti, or Kauffman, among others, see Ruiz-Mirazo and Moreno (2004).
In particular, genetic control mechanisms, although inherited by each individual organism, are ultimately generated by a meta-network of living systems in a long-term process of evolution.
Hence the merit of Craig Venter’s group (although it is not necessary to tell them), which succeeded in getting the metabolism of a microorganism (Mycoplasma capricolum) started and running, but with the important novelty of being instructed by a complete, artificial substitute of its natural genome, even if this was copied in almost every detail from the genome of a relatively close species (Mycoplasma mycoides) (Gibson et al. 2010).
In a chemical (proto-biological) context, the capacity of a system to “give itself a law” or “act according to its own laws” (original meaning of the word “autonomy”) is equivalent to the capacity to generate molecular components that operate as constraints (i.e., local rules) on other components of the self-maintaining/self-producing system (Ruiz-Mirazo and Moreno 2004).
References
Barandiaran XE, Di Paolo E, Rohde M (2009) Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adapt Behav 17:367–386
Bechtel W, Abrahamsen A (2007) Mental mechanisms, autonomous systems, and moral agency. In: McNamara DS, Trafton JG (eds) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, pp 95–100
Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6:533–543
Chen IA, Roberts RW, Szostak JW (2004) The emergence of competition between model protocells. Science 305:1474–1476
Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453
Endy D, Knight T, Ha L (2010) The BioBricks Foundation Inc. http://bbf.openwetware.org
Feynman RP (1988) Richard Feynman’s blackboard at time of his death. Photo ID 1.1029. http://www.archives.caltech.edu
Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang R-Y et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329:52–56
Hartwell L, Hopfield J, Leibler S, Murray A (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402:47–52
Keller EF (2009) What does synthetic biology have to do with biology? BioSocieties 4:291–302
Kittleson JT, Wu GC, Anderson JC (2012) Successes and failures in modular genetic engineering. Curr Opin Chem Biol 16:329–336
Langton CG (1989) Artificial life. In: Langton CG (ed) Artificial life I (Proceedings of the first conference on artificial life, Los Alamos, September, 1987). Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, pp 1–47
Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. In: Poinat A (ed) étude de biophysique. Masson, Paris
Letelier JC, Soto-Andrade J, Guíñez Abarzúa F, Cornish-Bowden A, Cárdenas ML (2006) Organizational invariance and metabolic closure: analysis in terms of (M, R)-systems. J Theor Biol 238:949–961
Lincoln TA, Joyce GF (2009) Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme. Science 323:1229–1232
Mansy SS, Schrum JP, Krishnamurthy M, Tobé S, Treco DA, Szostak JW (2008) Template directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell. Nature 454:122–126
Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Kinds of causes, predictability and teleology are viewed by a practicing biologist. Science 134:1501–1506
Morange M (2009) A new revolution? EMBO Rep 10:S50–S53
Mossio M, Moreno A (2010) Organisational closure in biological organisms. Hist Phil Life Sci 32:269–288
O’Malley M, Powell A, Davies JF, Calvert J (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 30:57–65
Peretó J, Catalá J (2007) The renaissance of synthetic biology. Biol Theory 2:128–130
Raff RA (1996) The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Rosen R (1991) Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin and fabrication of life. Columbia University Press, New York
Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2004) Basic autonomy as a fundamental step in the synthesis of life. Artif Life 10:235–259
Ruiz-Mirazo K, Peretó J, Moreno A (2004) A universal definition of life: autonomy and open-ended evolution. Orig Life Evol Biosph 34:323–346
Ruiz-Mirazo K, Umerez J, Moreno A (2008) Enabling conditions for open-ended evolution. Biol Philos 23:67–85
Serrano L (2007) Synthetic biology: promises and challenges. Mol Syst Biol 3:158. doi:10.1038/msb4100202
Westerhoff H, Palsson B (2004) The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology. Nat Biotechnol 22:1249–1252
Acknowledgments
Our research activity is presently supported by the Spanish and Basque governments: MINEC0 FFI2011-25665 (K.R.-M. and A.M.) and FFU2009-12895-CO2-02 (A.M.) from the former, and GV–IT 505-10 (K.R.-M. and A.M.) from the latter. We would also like to thank Ulrich Krohs and Mark Bedau for their critical comments and editorial help, efficiently complemented by Deborah Klosky.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Moreno, A. Synthetic Biology: Challenging Life in Order to Grasp, Use, or Extend It. Biol Theory 8, 376–382 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0129-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0129-8