Biological Theory

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 376–382 | Cite as

Synthetic Biology: Challenging Life in Order to Grasp, Use, or Extend It

Thematic Issue Article: Synthesis (σύνθεσις)


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.


Artificial life Autonomous systems Fabrication Genetic engineering Metabolism Open-ended evolution Origins of life Synthesis 


  1. Barandiaran XE, Di Paolo E, Rohde M (2009) Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adapt Behav 17:367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 95–100Google Scholar
  3. Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen IA, Roberts RW, Szostak JW (2004) The emergence of competition between model protocells. Science 305:1474–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Endy D, Knight T, Ha L (2010) The BioBricks Foundation Inc.
  7. Feynman RP (1988) Richard Feynman’s blackboard at time of his death. Photo ID 1.1029.
  8. 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 329:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartwell L, Hopfield J, Leibler S, Murray A (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keller EF (2009) What does synthetic biology have to do with biology? BioSocieties 4:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kittleson JT, Wu GC, Anderson JC (2012) Successes and failures in modular genetic engineering. Curr Opin Chem Biol 16:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 1–47Google Scholar
  13. Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. In: Poinat A (ed) étude de biophysique. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 238:949–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lincoln TA, Joyce GF (2009) Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme. Science 323:1229–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 454:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Kinds of causes, predictability and teleology are viewed by a practicing biologist. Science 134:1501–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morange M (2009) A new revolution? EMBO Rep 10:S50–S53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mossio M, Moreno A (2010) Organisational closure in biological organisms. Hist Phil Life Sci 32:269–288Google Scholar
  20. O’Malley M, Powell A, Davies JF, Calvert J (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 30:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peretó J, Catalá J (2007) The renaissance of synthetic biology. Biol Theory 2:128–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raff RA (1996) The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosen R (1991) Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin and fabrication of life. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2004) Basic autonomy as a fundamental step in the synthesis of life. Artif Life 10:235–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Peretó J, Moreno A (2004) A universal definition of life: autonomy and open-ended evolution. Orig Life Evol Biosph 34:323–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Umerez J, Moreno A (2008) Enabling conditions for open-ended evolution. Biol Philos 23:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Serrano L (2007) Synthetic biology: promises and challenges. Mol Syst Biol 3:158. doi:10.1038/msb4100202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westerhoff H, Palsson B (2004) The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology. Nat Biotechnol 22:1249–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Donostia-San SebastiánSpain
  2. 2.Biophysics UnitCSIC-UPV/EHULeioaSpain

Personalised recommendations