Synthetic biology UK: progress, paradigms and prospects

Lionel J. Clarke

Synthetic biology UK: progress, paradigms and prospects

View Fulltext

Author(s): Lionel J. Clarke¹
- Affiliations: 1: 3.16 RSM Department of Bioengineering , Imperial College, UK Synthetic Biology Leadership Council , Exhibition Road, London SW7 2BX , UK
Source: Volume 1, Issue 2, December 2017, p. 66 – 70
DOI: 10.1049/enb.2017.0022 , Online ISSN 2398-6182

« Previous Article
Table of contents
Next Article »

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

Received 23/10/2017, Accepted 30/10/2017, Published 20/12/2017

Drawing comparisons with the study of scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn over 50 years ago it is possible to frame synthetic biology as a new paradigm, approaching biology and its potential for redesign from an engineering and information management standpoint. This may help relate it to current thinking about potentially revolutionary future developments stemming from the recent and very rapidly progressing convergence of relevant technologies. However, striking differences from Kuhn's historic examples may also be noted – not only a greater awareness today of potential impacts that highlights the importance of explicitly incorporating broader issues of responsibility and governance but also the rapid growth in numbers of new researchers and entrepreneurs to the field globally which could accelerate the paradigm-shift process. The UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap 2012 and subsequent 2016 Strategy set out to develop a mechanism to respond nationally to this wider perspective, and examples, both UK and global, are drawn upon to help assess current progress towards the realisation of an ‘engineering biology’ paradigm.

References

1. 1)
  - 33. Engineering Biology Advisory Committee (EBAC), UK Bioindustry Association. Available at https://www.bioindustry.org/bia-membership/advisory-committees/engineering-biology-advisory-committee.html, accessed October 2017.
2. 2)
  - 12. Endy, A.: ‘Foundations for engineering biology’, Nature, 2005, 438, pp. 449–453 (doi: 10.1038/nature04342).
3. 3)
  - 18. Kitney, R.A., Freemont, P.: ‘Synthetic biology – the state of play’, Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc., 2012, 586, (15), pp. 2029–2036 (doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2012.06.002).
4. 4)
  - 20. Hobom, B.: ‘Surgery of genes. At the doorstep of synthetic biology’, Med. Klin., 1980, 75, pp. 14–21.
5. 5)
  - 28. Kuhn, T.S.: ‘The structure of scientific revolutions’, in Hacking, I. (Ed.): ‘4th (50th anniversary) edition with introductory essay’ (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2012).
6. 6)
  - 1. ‘UK synthetic biology roadmap’, 2012. Available at https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-speciaml-interest-group/roadmap-for-synthetic-biology, accessed 17 October 2017.
7. 7)
  - 36. Tait, J., Banda, G., Watkins, A.: ‘Proportionate and adaptive governance of innovative technologies: a framework to guide policy and regulatory decision making’. Innogen Institute Report to the British Standards Institution, 2017. Available at https://www.innogen.ac.uk/reports/1222, accessed October 2017.
8. 8)
  - 21. Shapira, P., Kwon, S., Youtie, J.: ‘Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology’, Scientometrics, 2017, 112, (3), pp 1439–1469 (doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2452-5).
9. 9)
  - 3. Watson, J.D., Crick, F.H.: ‘Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid’, Nature, 1953, 171, (4356), pp. 737–738 (doi: 10.1038/171737a0).
10. 10)
  - 8. ‘Diagnostic method utilizing synthetic deoxyrilionucleotide oligomer template’. US Patent No. 3, 755, 086, 28 August 1973(filed February 9, 1971).
11. 11)
  - 29. iGEM: ‘Synthetic biology based on standard parts’. Available athttp://igem.org/Main_Page, accessed October 2017.
12. 12)
  - 9. ‘Recombinant DNA transfer vectors’. US Patent No. 4, 363, 877, 14 December 1982(filed April 19, 1978).
13. 13)
  - 27. Kuhn, T.S.: ‘The structure of scientific revolutions’ (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962).
14. 14)
  - 31. ‘A vibrant synthetic biology ecosystem has developed in the UK – promising new jobs and valuable technology’, SynbiCITE, 21 July 2017. Available at http://www.synbicite.com/news-events/2017/jul/21/vibrant-synthetic-biology-ecosystem-has-developed-/, accessed October 2017.
15. 15)
  - 37. ‘The Eight Great Technologies’, Policy Exchange, 24 January 2013. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eight-great-technologies, accessed October 2017.
16. 16)
  - 11. DuPont Applied Biosciences™ presentation, 2007.
17. 17)
  - 5. Cameron, D.E., Bashor, C.J., Collins, J.J.: ‘A brief history of synthetic biology’, Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2014, 12, pp. 381–390 (doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3239).
18. 18)
  - 23. Issacson, W.: ‘Steve jobs’ (Little, Brown Book Group, UK, 2011).
19. 19)
  - 35. Carson, R.: ‘Silent spring’ (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 1962).
20. 20)
  - 24. ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond’, World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, 14 January 2016. Available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/, accessed October 2017.
21. 21)
  - 6. ‘Alex Jeffreys and genetic fingerprinting’. Available at https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/jeffreys, accessed October 2017.
22. 22)
  - 14. BSI: ‘Use of standards for digital biological information in the design, construction and description of a synthetic biological system’, 2015. Available at http://shop.bsigroup.com/forms/PASs/PAS-2462015/, accessed October 2017.
23. 23)
  - 4. Monod, J., Jacob, F.: ‘Teleonomic mechanisms in cellular metabolism, growth, and differentiation’. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol., 1961, 26, pp. 389–401 (doi: 10.1101/SQB.1961.026.01.048).
24. 24)
  - 40. UK Synthetic Biology Leadership Council: ‘Biodesign for the bioeconomy’, 2016. Available at https://admin.ktn-uk.co.uk/app/uploads/2017/10/UKSyntheticBiologyStrategicPlan16.pdf, accessed October 2017.
25. 25)
  - 16. Baldwin, G., Bayer, T., Dickinson, R., et al: ‘Synthetic biology – a primer’ (Imperial College Press, London, 2012), p. 73.
26. 26)
  - 22. Oldham, P., Hall, S., Burton, G.: ‘Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape’, PLoS ONE, 2012, 7, (4), p. e34368 (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034368).
27. 27)
  - 15. ‘ACS synthetic biology adopts SBOL synthetic biology standards’, June 2016. Available at https://synbiobeta.com/acs-synthetic-biology-adopts-sbol/, accessed October 2017.
28. 28)
  - 38. Synthetic Biology Dialogue, 2011. Available at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue-pdf/, accessed October 2017.
29. 29)
  - 19. Gach, P.C.: ‘Droplet microfluidics for synthetic biology’, Lab Chip., 2017, 17, pp. 338–3400 (doi: 10.1039/C7LC00576H).
30. 30)
  - 2. Weiss, R., Panke, S.: ‘Synthetic biology – paths to moving forward’, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 2009, 20, pp. 447–448 (doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2009.09.007).
31. 31)
  - 17. Kwok, R.: ‘Five hard truths for synthetic biology’, Nature, 2010, 463, (7279), pp. 288–290 (doi: 10.1038/463288a).
32. 32)
  - 26. Tait, J.: ‘Systemic interactions in life science innovation’, Technol. Anal. Strategic Manage., 2007, 19, (3), pp. 257–277 (doi: 10.1080/09537320701281524).
33. 33)
  - 32. Synthace. Available athttps://synthace.com.
34. 34)
  - 25. ‘Five Synthetic Biology Companies Named Among World Economic Forum's Top 30 Technology Pioneers’, Synbiobeta, 30 June 2016. Available at https://synbiobeta.com/synthetic-biology-companies-world-economic-forums-technology-pioneers/, accessed October 2017.
35. 35)
  - 7. ‘Procedures for use of genic male sterility in production of commercial hybrid maize’. US Patent No. 3, 710, 511, 16 January 1973(filed April 21, 1971).
36. 36)
  - 10. National Human Genome Research Institute: ‘All about the human genome project’. Available athttps://www.genome.gov/10001772/, accessed October 2017.
37. 37)
  - 39. Clarke, L.J., Kitney, R.I.: ‘Synthetic biology in the UK – an outline of plans and progress’, Synth. Syst. Biotechnol., 2016, 1, pp. 243–257 (doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2016.09.003).
38. 38)
  - 30. Brenner, S.: ‘The revolution in the life sciences’, Science, 2013, 338, pp. 1427–1428 (doi: 10.1126/science.1232919).
39. 39)
  - 34. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., et al: ‘The limits to growth – a report for the club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind’ (Universe Books, New York, 1972).
40. 40)
  - 13. The Flowers Consortium comprises groups from Imperial College, Kings College, the London School of Economics, Cambridge University and Newcastle University in the UK. Available at http://www.synbiuk.org, accessed October 2017.

Login

Not registered yet?

Share

Tools

Login to add to favourites

Key

Synthetic biology UK: progress, paradigms and prospects

References

Related content