Abstract
Synthetic biology is described as a new field of biotechnology that models itself on engineering sciences. However, this view of synthetic biology as an engineering field has received criticism, and both biologists and philosophers have argued for a more nuanced and heterogeneous understanding of the field. This paper elaborates the heterogeneity of synthetic biology by clarifying the role of design and the variability of design methodologies in synthetic biology. I focus on two prominent design methodologies: rational design and directed evolution. Rational design resembles the design methodology of traditional engineering sciences. However, it is often replaced and complemented by the more biologically-inspired method of directed evolution, which models itself on natural evolution. These two approaches take philosophically different stances to the design of biological systems. Rational design aims to make biological systems more machine-like, whereas directed evolution utilizes variation and emergent features of living systems. I provide an analysis of the methodological basis of these design approaches, and highlight important methodological differences between them. By analyzing the respective benefits and limitations of these approaches, I argue against the engineering-dominated conception of synthetic biology and its “methodological monism”, where the rational design approach is taken as the default design methodology. Alternative design methodologies, like directed evolution, should be considered as complementary, not competitive, to rational design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Tinkering and kludges should not be seen, however, as a plain disanalogy between synthetic biology and engineering. Even though systematized and autonomous design can be seen as an engineering ideal for the engineering-dominated conception of synthetic biology, kludging and similar ad hoc solutions that prioritize functionality over understanding are common in actual engineering practice.
References
Agapakis CM (2014) Designing synthetic biology. ACS Synth Biol 3(3):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1021/sb4001068
Agapakis CM, Silver PA (2009) Synthetic biology: exploring and exploiting genetic modularity through the design of novel biological networks. Mol Biosyst 5(7):704–713. https://doi.org/10.1039/B901484E
Andrianantoandro E, Basu S, Karig DK, Weiss R (2006) Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Mol Syst Biol 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/msb4100073
Arkin AP, Fletcher DA (2006) Fast, cheap and somewhat in control. Genome Biol 7(8):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-8-114
Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Blake WJ, Isaacs FJ (2004) Synthetic biology evolves. Trends Biotechnol 22(7):321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.04.008
Boudry M, Pigliucci M (2013) The mismeasure of machine: synthetic biology and the trouble with engineering metaphors. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):660–668
Bujara M, Panke S (2010) Engineering in complex systems. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(5):586–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.07.007
Cambray G, Mutalik VK, Arkin AP (2011) Toward rational design of bacterial genomes. Curr Opin Microbiol 14(5):624–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2011.08.001
Cameron DE, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ (2014) A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 12(5):381–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3239
Cardinale S, Arkin AP (2012) Contextualizing context for synthetic biology—identifying causes of failure of synthetic biological systems. Biotechnol J 7(7):856–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201200085
Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dougherty MJ, Arnold FH (2009) Directed evolution: new parts and optimized function. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20(4):486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2009.08.005
Elowitz MB, Leibler S (2000) A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 403(6767):335–338. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002125
Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438(7067):449–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04342
ERASynBio (2014) Next steps for European synthetic biology: a strategic vision from ERASynBio. Technical report, ERASynBio/European Commission
François P, Hakim V (2004) Design of genetic networks with specified functions by evolution in silico. PNAS 101(2):580–585. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0304532101
Giese B, Koenigstein S, Wigger H, Schmidt JC, von Gleich A (2013) Rational engineering principles in synthetic biology: a framework for quantitative analysis and an initial assessment. Biol Theory 8(4):324–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0130-2
Guimaraes JC, Liu CC, Arkin AP (2013) From biological parts to circuit design. In: Zhao H (ed) Synthetic biology: tools and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 63–78
Güttinger S (2013) Creating parts that allow for rational design: synthetic biology and the problem of context-sensitivity. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(2):199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.015
Haseltine EL, Arnold FH (2007) Synthetic gene circuits: design with directed evolution. Annu Rev Biophys Biomed 36:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132600
Heinemann M, Panke S (2006) Synthetic biology—putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 22(22):2790–2799. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl469
Heinemann M, Panke S (2009) Synthetic biology: putting engineering into bioengineering. In: Fu P, Panke S (eds) Systems biology and synthetic biology. Wiley, New York, pp 387–409
Holm S (2015) Is synthetic biology mechanical biology? Hist Philos Life Sci 37(4):413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-015-0081-y
Houkes W, Vermaas PE (2010) Technical functions: on the use and design of artefacts. Springer, Dordrecht
Hutchison CA, Chuang RY, Noskov VN, Assad-Garcia N, Deerinck TJ, Ellisman MH, Gill J, Kannan K, Karas BJ, Ma L, Pelletier JF, Qi ZQ, Richter RA, Strychalski EA, Sun L, Suzuki Y, Tsvetanova B, Wise KS, Smith HO, Glass JI, Merryman C, Gibson DG, Venter JC (2016) Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science 351(6253):aad6280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad6253
Jäckel C, Kast P, Hilvert D (2008) Protein design by directed evolution. Annu Rev Biophys 37:153–173. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832
Knuuttila T, Loettgers A (2013a) Basic science through engineering? synthetic modeling and the idea of biology-inspired engineering. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(2):158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.011
Knuuttila T, Loettgers A (2013b) Synthetic modeling and mechanistic account: material recombination and beyond. Philos Sci 80(5):874–885. https://doi.org/10.1086/673965
Knuuttila T, Loettgers A (2014) Varieties of noise: analogical reasoning in synthetic biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci 48:76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.05.006
Kroes P (2012) Technical artefacts: creations of mind and matter—a philosophy of engineering design. Springer, Heidelberg
Kuorikoski J, Pöyhönen S (2013) Understanding nonmodular functionality: lessons from genetic algorithms. Philos Sci 80(5):637–649. https://doi.org/10.1086/673866
Lewens T (2013) From bricolage to biobricks™: synthetic biology and rational design. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):641–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.011
Marguet P, Balagadde F, Tan C, You L (2007) Biology by design: reduction and synthesis of cellular components and behaviour. J R Soc Interface 4(15):607–623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0206
Marliere P (2009) The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9040-9
Oftedal G, Parkkinen VP (2013) Synthetic biology and genetic causation. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(2):208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.016
O’Malley M (2011) Exploration, iterativity and kludging in synthetic biology. Comptes Rendus Chim 14(4):406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2010.06.021
O’Malley M, Powell A, Davies JF, Calvert J (2007) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. Bioessays 30(1):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20664
Packer MS, Liu DR (2015) Methods for the directed evolution of proteins. Nat Rev Genet 16(7):379–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3927
Porcar M (2010) Beyond directed evolution: darwinian selection as a tool for synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 4(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9045-4
Porcar M, Peretó J (2016) Nature versus design: synthetic biology or how to build a biological non-machine. Integr Biol 8(4):451–455. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5IB00239G
Purnick PEM, Weiss R (2009) The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10(6):410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2698
Romero PA, Arnold FH (2009) Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10(12):866–876. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2805
Roosth S (2017) Synthetic: how life got made. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Schmidt M (2010) Xenobiology: a new form of life as the ultimate biosafety tool. Bioessays 32(4):322–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.200900147
Schmidt JC (2015) Synthetic biology as late-modern technology. In: Giese B, Pade C, Wigger H, von Gleich A (eds) Synthetic biology, risk engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–30
Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Torres L, Krüger A, Csibra E, Gianni E, Pinheiro VB (2016) Synthetic biology approaches to biological containment: pre-emptively tackling potential risks. Essays Biochem 60(4):393–410. https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20160013
Wagner A (2005) Robustness and evolvability in living systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ijäs, T. Design Methodologies and the Limits of the Engineering-Dominated Conception of Synthetic Biology. Acta Biotheor 67, 1–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-018-9338-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-018-9338-7