Nobel Prize Rewards Biotechnology Breakthrough
By: Daniel R. Ballon, Ph.D.
10.8.2007
The Nobel Prize committee announced this morning that three scientists will share the 2007 award in Medicine or Physiology "for their discoveries of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells." This may sound like a mouthful, but the basic idea is straightforward: Mario Capecchi, Oliver Smithies, and Martin Evans devised a technique to create designer mice. Scientists can learn about human disorders by studying mice customized to develop similar conditions, such as atherosclerosis, cancer, high blood pressure, and cystic fibrosis. Some oddities have also been created using this technology, resulting in fearless mice, "Schwarzenegger mice" with enormous muscles, or mice which glow in the dark. The development of this technique in 1989 was a significant advance in biotechnology because it enabled the modification of a mammal's genetic blueprint. At the time of this discovery, however, scientists had already been manipulating genes in bacteria for over 15 years. In 1980, for example, GE scientist Ananda Chakrabarty was granted a patent for designer bacteria which could be used in cleaning up oil spills. In the 18 years following the major achievements of Capecchi, Smithies, and Evans, over 10,000 types of modified mice have been engineered. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, genetic engineering technology has helped launch nearly 1,500 U.S. biotechnology companies with a market capitalization of over $400 billion. Due to fierce competition and high stakes, industry investors and venture capitalists are hungry to find the ‘next big thing' in biotechnology. According to the front page of Saturday's Guardian, an American scientist is ready to satisfy these appetites, announcing "the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth." It is no surprise to learn that this scientist is J. Craig Venter, a biochemist with a knack for inciting controversy and capturing headlines. This is the same man who in 1998 challenged the federal government's $3 billion Human Genome Project in a race to sequence the genome. With his latest proclamation, Venter hopes to draw attention (and investment) to the emerging field of ‘synthetic biology.' The name is derived from new techniques enabling the synthesis of very large pieces of DNA in the laboratory. Unlike traditional genetic engineering which makes only modest changes to an organism's genetic blueprint, synthetic biology has the potential to dramatically alter an organism's function and behavior, even conferring new abilities which do not exist in nature. Ultimately, these new species could act like tiny factories, producing life-saving therapeutics for human diseases, or an abundant supply of renewable biofuels. In establishing the 500 person, $200 million J. Craig Venter Institute, Venter has already invested heavily in the promise of synthetic biology. In order for this investment to pay off, he must draw attention to the field, even if this requires using grandiose exaggerations and inflammatory rhetoric in order to incite controversy. According to a recent profile of Venter in Forbes, this is a familiar tactic: "He warps the reality field around genetic research through sheer force of ego and showmanship." In a trademark expression of ‘ego and showmanship,' Venter is hoping to ignite a controversy over synthetic biology which will focus the world's attention on his research. His comments on Saturday are designed to trigger hysteria in the media, and condemnation from policymakers: "This will be a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are trying to create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect everybody to be happy." Though terms like ‘create a new value system for life' are clearly provocative, the public should not take this bait. The breakthrough which Venter describes does not create ‘artificial life' any more than Capecchi, Smithies, and Evans created artificial mice almost 20 years ago. To accomplish what he is suggesting, Venter would need to create life from a combination of non-living materials. Instead, he has modified living bacteria by introducing new genes. The only major difference between this technique and conventional genetic engineering is the shear scale of genetic material introduced and replaced. While calls for regulation might be good for stimulating investment in Mr. Venter's business, they would be an unnecessary distraction in a developing and extremely promising scientific field.
|
