Follow this blog:
RSS

Public sees promise of synthetic biology, but wary

By | September 9, 2010, 3:42 AM PDT

Synthetic biology, the design and construction of new biological parts and systems, has the public’s support, but many say that risks need to be evaluated, according to a survey.

The survey, conducted by the Hart Research Associates and the Synthetic Biology Project, polled 1,000 adults on synthetic biology, a market expected to be about $4.5 billion by 2015.

Two-thirds of Americans say that synthetic biology should proceed, but with more research to determine the risks and implications of producing biological systems.

A third of the public supports a ban on synthetic biology until the risks are understanding. Half of those surveyed want more federal regulation. Increasingly, U.S. adults know more about synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

Here’s how Hart Research described synthetic biology to respondents:

Synthetic biology is the use of advanced science and engineering to make or redesign living organisms, such as bacteria, so that they can carry out specific functions. Synthetic biology involves making new genetic code, also known as DNA, that does not already exist in nature.

The potential BENEFITS of synthetic biology include developing new microorganisms to treat disease, including cancer, more effectively and to create new and less expensive medications. It also could be used to make new organisms that could provide cheaper and cleaner sources of energy than today’s oil-based fuels, and to detect and break down environmental pollutants in the soil, air, and water. While the potential RISKS of synthetic biology are not known, there are concerns that man-made organisms might behave in unexpected and possibly harmful ways and that they could cause harm to the environment. There also are concerns that, if these organisms fall into the wrong hands, they could be used as weapons. Additionally, the ability to create artificial life has raised moral and ethical questions about how life is defined.

With that backdrop, Americans gave the following responses:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Larry Dignan

About Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is the editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan

Editor-in-Chief

Larry Dignan is editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet and ZDNet. He is also editorial director of TechRepublic. Previously, he was an editor at eWeek, Baseline and CNET News. He has written for WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, New York Times and Financial Planning. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Delaware. He is based in New York but resides in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan
Larry Dignan does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
2
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Do most Americans even know what "synthetic biology" is?
I have to wonder if most Americans really have an understanding of what "synthetic biology" is, where's it's at today, and where it may be going in the future. While ultimately it may mean making completely new organisms out of DNA first created in the lab, for now it is just about adding a feature or two to an already existing single-cell organism. I'm not even sure they can do it to cells with a nucleus.
Posted by zackers
9th Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Public sees promise of synthetic biology, but wary
Synthetic Biology is just the old long promised Genetic Engineering.

Like everything else, there is a promise of benefits, and a risk of harm.

It's the same with fire. The same force can save your life in cold weather, or take it in a forest fire.

If reasonable safeguards are taken, it will benefit us.

The negatives are all around us from the natural world.

For use in warfare, they won't tell us about it in advance anyway. Yes or no, won't matter. In the end, it probably won't be used. Same as for Biological Warfare. It's just to hard to contain. You don't want to use a weapon that will harm your own troops as much or more than it will the enemy.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
11th Sep 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!