Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon openaccess Synthetic biology, engineering biology, market expectation

‘Engineering biology’ is being increasingly adopted as a term by organisations that seek to deliver benefits from ‘synthetic biology’. However, are ‘engineering biology’ and ‘synthetic biology’ different words with the same meaning or do they signal important differences? By observing how these two terms are currently being described and applied in practice, it is possible to differentiate the two whilst also acknowledging significant overlaps and complementarity. Increasing adoption of the term ‘engineering biology’ reflects the maturing of synthetic biology since the early years of this century from a research concept to a technological platform that is facilitating the delivery of commercial products and services. The term ‘synthetic biology’ retains a strong association with its original goal to help make biology engineerable, a challenge that will inevitably continue to stimulate research for decades to come as ever more complex and demanding systems are tackled. In comparison, the term ‘engineering biology’ relates more commonly to the utilisation of the synthetic biology platform alongside other related technologies to deliver effective solutions in response to increasing market challenges and expectations.

References

    1. 1)
      • 9. Madsen, C., Goni Moreno, A., Palchick, Z.P.U., et al: ‘Synthetic biology open language visual (SBOL visual) version 2.1’, J. Integr. Bioinf., 2019, 16, pp. 178.
    2. 2)
      • 28. Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC); ‘What is synthetic/engineering biology?’. Available at https://ebrc.org/what-is-synbio/, accessed 21 August 2020.
    3. 3)
      • 31. Cumbers, J.: ‘Synthetic biology has raised $12.4 billion. Here are five sectors it will soon disrupt’. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2019/09/04/synthetic-biology-has-raised-124-billion-here-are-five-sectors-it-will-soon-disrupt/, accessed 24 August 2020.
    4. 4)
      • 23. Thirteenth meeting the Parties to the CBD, decision XIII/17 Synthetic Biology. Available at https://bch.cbd.int/synbio/, accessed 20 August 2020).
    5. 5)
      • 11. Fernandez, C.R.: ‘CRISPR-Cas9: how this gene editing tool is changing the world’ Labiotech.eu. Available at https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/crispr-cas9-review-gene-editing-tool/, accessed 23 August 2020.
    6. 6)
      • 20. Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK, 2012. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/synthetic-biology-leadership-council#synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-the-uk-2012, accessed 20 August 2020.
    7. 7)
      • 4. Knight, T.: ‘Idempotent vector design for standard assembly of biobricks’, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory – private communication.
    8. 8)
      • 8. BSI PAS 246:2015: ‘Use of standards for digital biological information in the design, construction and description of a synthetic biological system – Guide’. Available at https://shop.bsigroup.com/forms/PASs/PAS-2462015/, accessed 23 August 2020.
    9. 9)
      • 3. National Human Genome Research Institute: ‘human genome project results’. Available at https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/results, accessed 20 August 2020.
    10. 10)
      • 17. Global Biofoundries Alliance. Available at https://biofoundries.org, accessed 20 August 2020.
    11. 11)
      • 25. Clarke, L.J.: ‘Synthetic biology UK: progress, paradigms and prospects’, Eng. Biol., 2017, 1, (2), pp. 6670.
    12. 12)
      • 22. Kahl, L., Molloy, J., Patron, N., et al: ‘Opening options for material transfer’, Nat. Biotechnol., 2018, 36, (10), pp. 923927.
    13. 13)
      • 12. Zhu, X-D., Chu, J., Wang, Y-H.: ‘Advances in microfluidics applied to single cell operation’, Biotechnol. J., 2018, 13, p. 1700416(9 pages).
    14. 14)
      • 21. BioBricks Foundation, ‘Building with Biology to Benefit All people and the Planet’. Available at https://biobricks.org, accessed 21 Aug 2020.
    15. 15)
      • 34. Engineering Biology Leadership Council. Available at https://ktn-uk.org/programme/engineering-biology-leadership-council/.
    16. 16)
      • 32. Ceroni, F., Ellis, T.: ‘The challenges facing synthetic biology in eukaryotes’, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 2018, 19, pp. 481482.
    17. 17)
      • 16. Hillson, N., Caddick, M., Cai, Y., et al: ‘Building a global alliance of biofoundries’, Nat. Commun., 2019, 10, p. 2040.
    18. 18)
      • 5. Weiss, R., Panke, S.: ‘Synthetic biology – paths to moving forward’, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 2009, 20, pp. 447448.
    19. 19)
      • 2. Collins Dictionary: ‘biology’. Available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/biology, accessed 20 August 2020.
    20. 20)
      • 30. Web of Science, using search terms ‘synthetic biology’ and ‘engineering biology’ to end of 2019. Available at https://www.webofknowledge.com, accessed 12 August 2020.
    21. 21)
      • 27. Engineering Biology Advisory Committee (EBAC). Available at https://www.bioindustry.org/bia-membership/advisory-committees/engineering-biology-advisory-committee.html, (accessed 21 August 2020).
    22. 22)
      • 33. Crone, M.A., Priestman, M., Ciechonska, M., et al: ‘A role for biofoundries in rapid development and validation of automated SARS-CoV-2 clinical diagnostics’, Nat. Commun., 2020, 11, p. 4464.
    23. 23)
      • 6. Endy, A.: ‘Foundations for engineering biology’, Nature, 2005, 438, pp. 449453.
    24. 24)
      • 19. Royal Academy of Engineering: ‘Synthetic biology: scope applications and implications’, 2009. Available at https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/synthetic-biology-report, accessed 23 August 2020.
    25. 25)
      • 14. Martella, A., Matjusaitis, M., Auxillos, J., et al: ‘EMMA: An Extensible Mammalian Modular Assembly Toolkit for the Rapid Design and Production of Diverse Expression Vectors’, ACS Synth. Biol., 2017, 6, (7), pp. 13801392.
    26. 26)
      • 13. Si, T., Chao, R., Min, Y., et al: ‘Automated multiplex genome-scale engineering in yeast’, Nat. Commun., 2017, 8, p. 15187.
    27. 27)
      • 7. Kitney, R.I., Freemont, P.S.: ‘Synthetic biology – the state of play’, FEBS Lett., 2012, 586, pp. 20292036.
    28. 28)
      • 29. IET Engineering Biology. Available at https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/enb/info/about, accessed 20 August 2020.
    29. 29)
      • 15. Robinson, C.J., Carbonell, P., Jervis, A.J., et al: ‘Rapid prototyping of microbial production strains for the biomanufacturer of potential materials monomers’, Metab. Eng., 2020, 60, pp. 168182.
    30. 30)
      • 18. Jessop-Fabre, M.M., Sonnenschein, N.: ‘Improving reproducibility in synthetic biology’, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 2019, 7, (18), pp. 18.
    31. 31)
      • 10. BSI PAS 440:2020: ‘Responsible Innovation – Guide’. Available at https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030394658, accessed 23 August 2020.
    32. 32)
      • 26. UK Synthetic Biology Leadership Council. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/synthetic-biology-leadership-council, accessed 23 August 2020.
    33. 33)
      • 24. 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).
    34. 34)
      • 1. Collins Dictionary: ‘engineering’. Available at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/engineering, accessed 20 August 2020.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/enb.2020.0021
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/enb.2020.0021
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address