[>Htech] Montague: Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future

Hughes, James J. jhughes at changesurfer.com
Sun Jan 1 10:23:52 PST 2006


http://www.counterpunch.org/montague12312005.html

December 31 / January 1, 2005/6

Synthetic Biology: A Darker Bioweapons Future

By PETER MONTAGUE

One of the top developments of 2005 is a kind of genetic engineering on
steroids -- a new field called "synthetic biology" in which scientists
are setting out to create new forms of life that have never existed
before.

In "genetic engineering," natural genes from one species are inserted by
force into a different species, hoping to transfer the properties or
characteristics of one species into another. Trout can live in cold
water, so maybe a trout gene blasted into a tomato will help tomatoes
withstand cold weather. The limitation on this system is the
characteristics that nature has built into the genes of species.

Now scientists have overcome that limitation. They are learning to
develop entirely new species, new forms of life. Awareness of this new
scientific specialty -- called "synthetic biology" -- began to appear in
the press in 2005.

The construction of living things from raw chemicals was first
demonstrated in 2002 when scientists created a polio virus from scratch.
They found the polio virus genome on the internet, and within 2 years
had created a virus from raw chemicals. The synthetic virus could
reproduce and, when injected into mice, paralyzed them just as a natural
polio virus would do. They said they chose the polio virus to
demonstrate what a bioterrorist could accomplish.

"It is a little sobering to see that folks in the chemistry laboratory
can basically create a virus from scratch," James LeDuc of the federal
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said at the time.

A year later, in 2003 Craig Venter and colleagues at the Institute for
Biological Energy Alternatives in Rockville, Md., took only 3 weeks to
create a virus from scratch.

Later that same year the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published a
short paper called "The Darker Bioweapons Future," reporting the
conclusions of a panel of life science experts convened by the National
Academy of Sciences. The CIA paper said, in part, "The effects of some
of these engineered biological agents could be worse than any disease
known to man." And the CIA said, "The same science that may cure some of
our worst diseases could be used to create the world's most frightening
weapons." The CIA offered one example: "For example, one panelist cited
the possibility of a stealth virus attack that could cripple a large
portion of people in their forties with severe arthritis, concealing its
hostile origin and leaving a country with massive health and economic
problems."

Nature magazine -- England's most prestigious science journal -- said in
2004 that synthetic biology "carries potential dangers that could
eclipse the concerns already raised about genetic engineering and
nanotechnology."

Last month, the British journal New Scientist said in an editorial, "Let
us hope that tomorrow's terrorists don't include people with PhDs in
molecular genetics." The editorial went on to explain why the technology
cannot regulated: "The underlying technology has already proliferated
worldwide, and some gene-synthesis companies that are ostensibly based
in the west are thought to manufacture their DNA in China and other
countries in the far east where skilled labour is cheap."

The editorial was written in response to an investigation conducted by
the editors of New Scientist. They wondered if they could special- order
DNA over the internet and have it shipped to them by mail (which the
Brits call "post," not mail). Their report is titled, "The bioweapon is
in the post," and they concluded that it would be doable, and that
commerce in such things would be difficult -- or impossible -- to
control. "But with gene synthesis firms springing up all over the world,
and the underlying technology becoming cheaper and more widely
available, it is unclear whether regulations enacted in any one country
will be enough."

"It's going to be virtually impossible to control," predicts David
Magnus of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.

The New Scientist editorial ends by saying, "If there ever was a case
for scientists around the world to engage in sensible self-regulation
before a nightmare becomes reality, this is it."

Unfortunately, scientists are ill-equipped by their training to grapple
with the ethical and moral dimensions of their work. Scientists have no
equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath -- "First do no harm" -- that guides
the behavior of physicians. The Hippocratic oath counsels restraint,
humility, and caution. In science, on the other hand, wherever your
curiosity takes you is the right place to go, even if it takes you into
"a darker bioweapons future."

Small wonder that so many people have lost faith in science, scientific
progress, and the promise of America. As the editors of Nature said in
2004, "Controversies over genetically engineered crops and embryo
research are leading people to question how carefully scientists
consider the possible consequences of their work before barreling ahead.
This is no small concern for science, as it has already led to
restrictions."

But of course it isn't just scientists who are responsible for speeding
the deployment of ill-considered technologies onto the world market. The
underlying engine for all this reckless behavior is an economic system
that requires economic growth year after year.

Our society has grown dependent upon economic growth for achieving
"liberty and justice for all." You say your slice of the pie is
unacceptably small and you're having to sleep under a bridge? Don't
worry -- economic growth will make the whole pie larger, so your tiny
slice will grow too. Thus domestic tranquility, justice, fairness, and
fulfilling the promise of America are all dependent upon economic
growth. We don't have any other widely-approved way to distribute the
benefits of the economy, except through economic growth. We have
forgotten the alternative, which is sharing.

But decade after decade since World War II, economic growth rates have
been stagnant or declining, not just in the U.S. but throughout the
"developed" world.

Slow growth derives from at least two sources -- productive capacity
exceeds consumer demand and we have a glut of capital, so it is getting
harder to find good investments.

These two features of the modern economy force investors to constantly
search for "the next big thing" -- in hopes of returning to historical
rates of return on investment. As a consequence, corporations (which
have limited liability, by law) engage in reckless behavior -- including
behavior that may threaten the well being of everyone. They create new
biotech crops and deploy them across the nation's agricultural landscape
before thorough tests have been completed. They put nano particles into
baby lotion before they have any idea whether the nano particles can
penetrate a baby's skin, and before they have asked where those nano
particle will go after they are thrown out with the bath water.

So now we have synthetic biology -- the "next big thing" -- genetic
engineering on steroids -- the manufacture of living organisms unlike
any that have appeared on earth before. Investors are lining up to
support new firms that are willing to sell the building blocks of new
forms of life to anyone who can come up with a few hundred thousand
dollars. This may in fact produce the next big thing, but it may not be
quite the thing investors are hoping for.

Until we devise a steady-state economy that does not require perpetual
growth, investors will keep us on this awful "next big thing" merry-
go-round, our quality of life continually threatened anew by the ill-
considered products and unanticipated by-products of feral science.

Peter Montague is editor of the indispensable Rachel's Health and
Democracy, where this essay originally appeared. He can be reached at:
peter at rachel.org



Post message: transhumantech at yahoogroups.com
Subscribe:    transhumantech-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:  transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
List owner:   transhumantech-owner at yahoogroups.com
List home:    http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/transhumantech/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    transhumantech-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list