Advertisement

Archives of Microbiology

, Volume 198, Issue 7, pp 711–713 | Cite as

Synthetic biology: from mainstream to counterculture

  • Roy D. SleatorEmail author
Short Communication

Abstract

Existing at the interface of science and engineering, synthetic biology represents a new and emerging field of mainstream biology. However, there also exists a counterculture of Do-It-Yourself biologists, citizen scientists, who have made significant inroads, particularly in the design and development of new tools and techniques. Herein, I review the development and convergence of synthetic biology’s mainstream and countercultures.

Keywords

Synthetic biology DIY biology Biosecurity Biocontainment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

RDS is Coordinator of the EU FP7 Grant ClouDx-i.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest that the author is aware of.

References

  1. Balmer AS, Bulpin KJ (2013) Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. Biosocieties 8:311–335. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Barras V, Greub G (2014) History of biological warfare and bioterrorism. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:497–502. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12706 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenner K, Arnold FH (2011) Self-organization, layered structure, and aggregation enhance persistence of a synthetic biofilm consortium. PLoS one 6:e16791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016791 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher MA, McKinley KL, Bradley LH, Viola SR, Hecht MH (2011) De novo designed proteins from a library of artificial sequences function in Escherichia coli and enable cell growth. PLoS one 6:e15364. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015364 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Glass L (1975) Classification of biological networks by their qualitative dynamics. J Theor Biol 54:85–107. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(75)80056-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hutchison CA III et al (2016) Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science 351:aad6253. doi: 10.1126/science.aad6253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jefferson C, Lentzos F, Marris C (2014) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: challenging the “myths”. Front Publ Health 2:115. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kandpal RP, Saviola B, Felton J (2009) The era of ‘omics unlimited. Biotechniques 46:351. doi: 10.2144/000113137 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly TJ Jr, Smith HO (1970) A restriction enzyme from Hemophilus influenzae. II. J Mol Biol 51:393–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Keulartz J, van den Belt H (2016) DIY-Bio—economic, epistemological and ethical implications and ambivalences. Life Sci Soc Policy 12:7. doi: 10.1186/s40504-016-0039-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuiken T (2016) Governance: learn from DIY biologists. Nature 531:167–168. doi: 10.1038/531167a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lander ES et al (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409:860–921. doi: 10.1038/35057062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee P (2010) Biocontainment strategies for live lactic acid bacteria vaccine vectors. Bioengineered 1:75–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mcadams HH, Shapiro L (1995) Circuit simulation of genetic networks. Science 269:650–656. doi: 10.1126/science.7624793 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Molina L, Ramos C, Ronchel M-C, Molin S, Ramos JL (1998) Construction of an efficient biologically contained Pseudomonas putida strain and its survival in outdoor assays. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2072–2078PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Monod J, Jacob F (1961) General conclusions: telenomic mechanisms in cellular metabolism, growth and differentiation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 26:386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mullis KB, Faloona FA (1987) Specific synthesis of DNA in vitro via a polymerase-catalyzed chain reaction. Methods Enzymol 155:335–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Driscoll A, Daugelaite J, Sleator RD (2013) ‘Big data’, Hadoop and cloud computing in genomics. J Biomed Inform 46:774–781. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.07 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Seyfried G, Pei L, Schmidt M (2014) European do-it-yourself (DIY) biology: beyond the hope, hype and horror. BioEssays 36:548–551. doi: 10.1002/bies.201300149 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Sleator RD (2010) The story of Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0: the forty million dollar microbe. Bioeng Bugs 1:229–230. doi: 10.4161/bbug.1.4.12465 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Sleator RD (2012) Digital biology: a new era has begun. Bioengineered 3:311–312. doi: 10.4161/bioe.22367 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Sleator RD (2013) Synthetic ribosomes: making molecules that make molecules. Bioengineered 4:63–64. doi: 10.4161/bioe.23640 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Sleator RD (2014a) Genetics just got SEXY: sequences encoding XY. Bioengineered 5:214–215. doi: 10.4161/bioe.29306 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sleator RD (2014b) The synthetic biology future. Bioengineered 5:69–72. doi: 10.4161/bioe.28317 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Sleator RD (2016) JCVI-syn3.0 - A synthetic genome stripped bare! Bioengineered. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2016.1175847 Google Scholar
  26. Sleator RD, Hill C (2006) Patho-biotechnology: using bad bugs to do good things. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:211–216. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2006.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sleator RD, Shortall C, Hill C (2008) Metagenomics. Lett Appl Microbiol 47:361–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02444.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith HO, Wilcox KW (1970) A restriction enzyme from Hemophilus influenzae. I. Purification and general properties. J Mol Biol 51:379–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Venter JC et al (2001) The sequence of the human genome. Science 291:1304–1351. doi: 10.1126/science.1058040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolinsky H (2016) The FBI and biohackers: an unusual relationship: the FBI has had some success reaching out to the DIY biology community in the USA, but European biohackers remain skeptical of the intentions of US law enforcement. EMBO Rep. doi: 10.15252/embr.201642483 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesCork Institute of TechnologyBishopstown, CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations