If material progress in the 20th Century was largely thanks to the application of chemical processes, future generations looking back at our current time will surely see this as the time of transition to an age dominated by biological processes. In EU-speak, this is the dawning of the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE).
Large-scale chemistry continues to supply our need for energy and other basics of life. Oil refineries fractionate and transform crude oil into fuel and feedstocks for other processes. The Haber-Bosch process fixes atmospheric nitrogen to enable enough food to be grown for the 7 billion people alive today.
But technology and societies evolve. Life a hundred years ago was very different from the one we live now and the changes future generations will experience in the early 22nd Century will be major ones. From the present day, we cannot know with any certainty what these changes will be. After all, who in 1914 could have conceived how modern electronics have transformed the way we live our lives and do business?
We can, however, look at science and technological progress and make an informed judgement about the direction of travel in the medium term. Arguably the most significant advances in science are being made in physics, where our basic understanding of both the structure of matter and the universe is continuing to evolve, and biology, where knowledge of genes, epigenetics and cells has advanced very significantly in the decade or so since the first sequencing of the human genome.
Advances in quantum physics or dark energy are unlikely to translate into anything which affects our everyday lives anytime soon (although who knows what the future may bring?) but our understanding of cellular biology and gene expression is already having an impact. One of the most obvious manifestations of this is genetic modification.
Despite entrenched opposition from some groups in the EU, the first generation of crop varieties incorporating transgenic traits has been an outstanding success internationally. Even many of those who may be opposed are indirectly benefitting from the import of millions of tonnes of high-quality soy protein as one of the mainstays of the European livestock sector.
This may be the area of controversy, but the applications of genetic modification go far wider than agriculture. An increasing percentage of pharmaceuticals are made using biotechnology, based on clean, efficient, low-energy enzymic processes, in many cases with the help of transgenes.
The same advantages which the drug companies get from biological processes are also available to other industries and it is this so-called ‘white’ biotechnology which is slowly changing the nature of the chemical industry. As a definable part of the economy, it remains virtually hidden and difficult to analyse, because it is part of the operations of many companies rather than a stand-alone sector such as food or pharma. It is now used to make a wide range of fine chemicals, but also some plastics. Other industries relying more and more on enzymic processing include pulp and paper (for bleaching) and metalworking (for degreasing).
All this is driven by reduced energy use, waste reduction and increased process efficiency, but also by consumer demand and societal trends. For example, soft drinks are increasingly being sold in bottles made from conventional PET, but with the ethylene component manufactured from Brazilian sugar cane. This illustrates the other factor in the bio-economy, the use of renewable raw materials to replace fossil fuels.
With the tools of biotechnology at our fingertips, we have the potential to move increasingly to an economy based (to some extent, but not entirely) on harvested biomass and/or recycled waste. Enzymes or cells can be tweaked for particular processes and to improve efficiency.
So far, so good. Modifying micro-organisms is relatively straightforward and, if they are to be used in contained industrial processes, quite quick to commercialise. But even with the large barriers to be overcome to bring a GM agricultural crop variety to market, the potential offered by transgenes still makes it a worthwhile proposition for a company to undertake.
Genetic modification is becoming more sophisticated, but has been a relatively blunt instrument. Individual genes can be modified and several transgenic traits incorporated in one plant variety, but it has been a matter of luck exactly where the modified genes have been incorporated into the genome. This is a considerable advance on the random combinations of conventional breeding, but still has some technical drawbacks.
One of the foundation stones of GM is the understanding that many genes are highly conserved across the natural world, and that a gene from a bacterium can be made to function in a higher organism. From there, it is a logical step to construct a simple synthetic organism from a set of essential genes. This is exactly what Craig Venter (who else?) and his team did with the creation of ‘Synthia’ in 2010 (Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesised Genome).
Even this is not a truly synthetic cell, as the constructed genome operates in a bacterial cell which has been emptied of its own genetic material. But it does demonstrate the power of what is now called synthetic biology. Effectively GM2.0, this in principle allows the construction or modification of organisms using a standard kit of genes and other cellular components.
A very recent example of a promising area of work involves a team from Rothamsted Research: A synthetic biology approach to improve photosynthesis. Essentially, the team was successful in getting engineered bacterial proteins to self-assemble in plant chloroplasts, the engine of photosynthesis. Since this is the process plants use to grow, it underpins all higher life on Earth. The potential for higher yields is vitally important both for food security and to supply renewable raw materials for a future bio-economy.
But if genetic modification is controversial, then what about synthetic biology? Scientists, technologists, businesses and governments have to find ways to show a sceptical public that this next step forward has enormous potential and risks which can be identified and managed.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________