Synthetic Bacteria and the Darwinian Debate

After Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health and Craig Venter of Celera Genomics shared the glory of mapping DNA in the Human Genome Project back in 2000 the press went silent and the two went back to their respective laboratories. Now Time Magazine has named Venter one of the most influential persons of 2008 for compiling 582,970 genomic base pairs to create a bacteria which is synthetic. (Time, Jan 29, 2008) This raises many ethical questions which are being monitoried by social justice groups such as ETCgroup.org, but more importantly it brings into question what we understand about evolution and creation.

John Craig Venter has always been a controversial figure most notably for using his own DNA for gene sequence mapping, for using rapid research methods in an attempt to beat the NIH in mapping the Human Genome and his attempts to patent human gene fragments which many saw as going beyond the pale - can any one person hold a patent on the essential building blocks of what makes us human? He received his degrees from the University of California in San Diego; a BS in Biochemistry in 1972 and a PhD in Physiology/Pharmocology in 1975. He joined the National Institutes of Health in 1984. After leaving Celera Genomics, he started the J. Craig Venter Institute in 2005, and is now known for Synthetic Genomics.

Dr. Venter works alongside a 1978 Nobel Laureate Hamilton Smith who graduated from Berkeley with a Math degree and later got his M.D. from John Hopkins Medical School specializing in microbiology. Microbiologist Clyde Hutchinson is also helping out the project. He is a professor at the University of North Carolina and a graduate of Yale. Together these scientists are attempting to modify micro-organisms into synthetic bacteria which might eventually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The synthetic bacterium were originally entitled mycroplasma laboratorium which stems from bacteriophages derived from micro-organisms coming from the marine floor which are over 70 percent infected with bacteria. Venter's group applied for a patent in 2003 for a virus and in 2006 for what they now call Mycroplasma genitalium. The study of bacteriophages is not new and were initially applied in the former Soviet Union as alternatives to antibiotics. Today scientists hope to create synthetic bacteria which can eat away at oil spills or be used as alternative fuel such as ethanol.

A social watchdog group calling themselves ETCgroup which stands for Erosion, Technology, Concentration Group based in Canada has been monitoring the patenting requests of scientists based upon the wide-reaching social and ethical implications that such "created" or manufactured DNA and RNA recombination might have on the environment. We often hear commercial appeals from those stricken with various genetic diseases to open the door to genetic and cell research, but we rarely stop to think what might lie on the other side of that door. ETC is attempting to do just that. They began as RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) with help from Eleanor Roosevelt in the 1930s. Today they oppose patents on life, nanotechnology and genetic engineering, particularly that being done on our food sources like corn. Unlike many other countries, the US does not seem to have any particular ethical interest in the safety or environmental oversight of altering genes and creation of microbial-derived jet fuel. In fact big agra-corporations and others like Dupont have a financial incentive to create essential products dependent upon the synthetic bio-organisms they create.

Modifying micro-organisms and "creating" synthetic life forms such as bacteria may seem like something out of a science-fiction movie, but it is very real. It raises many questions about how we come to understand how basic materials of life evolve or sustain and whether or not such organisms are random, the fittest for survival, or selected for a particular purpose. We have entered an era where created life including human life now has intention, motivation and "intelligent" design. Unfortunately, like other wonders of science, we are at the mercy of the scientific creators' expectations and desires and the almost assured potential for unforeseen incidents or accidents which may hold long-range consequences.