Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shaping ecological risk research for synthetic biology

  • Published:
Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Synthetic biology is an interdisciplinary field that brings together biology and engineering at its core. Understanding and evaluating the ecological effects of synthetic biology applications also require broad interdisciplinary convergence and the ability to adapt to rapid technological developments. This article describes a series of workshops designed to provide a space for interdisciplinary groups of synthetic biologists, natural and social scientists, and other stakeholders to identify priority ecological hazards and to begin to design research programs to inform ecological risk assessments and risk management of synthetic biology applications. Participants identified gene flow, fitness, and competition as the key hazards of synthetic biology applications using engineered microorganisms. The rapid pace of synthetic biology research and product development, the potential environmental release of numerous applications, and the diffuse and diverse nature of the research community are prompting renewed attention on how to design robust ecological risk research programs to investigate such hazards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chathamhouserule

  2. http://igem.org/About

References

  • Burgman M (2005) Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carr PA, Wang HH, Sterling B, Isaacs FJ, Lajoie MJ, Xu G, Church GM, Jacobson JM (2012) Enhanced multiplex genome engineering through co-operative oligonucleotide co-selection. Nucleic Acids Res 40:e132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng AA, Lu TK (2012) Synthetic biology: an emerging engineering discipline. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:155–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Danchin A (2012) Scaling up synthetic biology: do not forget the chassis. FEBS Lett 586:2129–2137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JM (2012) A comprehensive environmental assessment approach to engineered nanomaterials. In: Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology

  • Davison J (2005) Risk mitigation of genetically modified bacteria and plants designed for bioremediation. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 32:639–650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson B, Singh R, Winters P (2011) Synthetic biology: regulating industry uses of new biotechnologies. Science 333:1254–1256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman ME (2002) Levels of expertise and trading zones: a framework for multi-disciplinary collaboration. Soc Stud Sci 32:933–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman ME (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson K, Jansson JK (1993) Ecological risk assessment of the deliberate release of genetically modified microorganisms. Ambio 22:236–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes KR, Regan HM, Burgman MA (2007) Introduction to the concepts and methods of uncertainty analysis. In Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms Volume 3: methodologies for transgenic fish. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 188–208

  • Henley WJ, Litaker RW, Novoveská L, Duke CS, Quemada HD, Sayre RT (2013) Initial risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) microalgae for commodity-scale biofuel cultivation. Algal Res 2:66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • iGEM University of Edinburgh iGEM Team. http://2006.igem.org/University_of_Edinburgh_2006. Accessed 31 May 2013

  • Isaacs FJ, Carr PA, Wang HH, Lajoie MJ, Sterling B, Kraal L, Tolonen AC, Gianoulis TA, Goodman DB, Reppas NB, Emig CJ, Bang D, Hwang SJ, Jewett MC, Jacobson JM, Church GM (2011) Precise manipulation of chromosomes in vivo enables genome-wide codon replacement. Science 333:348–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil AS, Collins JJ (2010) Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nat Rev Genet 11:367–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant GE, Allenby BR, Herkert JR (eds) (2011) The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marliere P (2009) The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world. Syst Synth Biol 3:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (2013) Domesticating and democratizing science: a geography of do-it-yourself biology. J Mater Cult 18:117–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1989) Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) Sustainable development of algal biofuels in the United States. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center. http://synberc.org/what-is-synbio. Accessed 17 Jun 2013

  • Niederholtmeyer H, Wolfstädter BT, Savage DF, Silver PA, Way JC (2010) Engineering cyanobacteria to synthesize and export hydrophilic products. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:3462–3466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. OECD International Futures Project. http://www.oecd.org/futures/long-termtechnologicalsocietalchallenges/thebioeconomyto2030designingapolicyagenda.htm. Accessed 3 May 2013

  • Powers CM, Dana G, Gillespie P, Gwinn MR, Ogilvie-Hendren C, Long TC, Wang A, Davis JM (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, D.C. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2014

  • Science (2013) Genetic microsurgery for the masses. 2013 Runners Up 342(6165):1434–1435

  • Snow AA, Smith VH (2012) Genetically engineered algae for biofuels: a key role for ecologists. Bioscience 62:765–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM, Wolfenbarger LL (2005) Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol Appl 15:377–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The National Bioeconomy Blueprint (2012) The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/national_bioeconomy_blueprint_april_2012.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2013

  • The Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic biology: scope, applications, and implications. Royal Academy of Engineering. http://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/UK-submission-2011-013-Synthetic_biology-en.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • The Royal Society (1983) Risk assessment: report of a Royal Society Study Group. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Transparency Market Research (2012) Synthetic biology market—global industry analysis, size, growth, share and forecast, 2012–2018. http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/synthetic-biology-market.html. 3 May 2013

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Development of ecological tier testing schemes for microbial biotechnology applications. Contract No. 68-D50012. Prepared by SRA Technologies, Inc

  • Wang HH, Isaacs FJ, Carr PA, Sun ZZ, Xu G, Forest CR, Church GM (2009) Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460:894–898

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woodrow Wilson Center (2012) Inventory of synthetic biology products—existing and possible. http://www.synbioproject.org/library/inventories/applications_inventory/. Accessed 17 Jun 2013

  • Woodrow Wilson Center (2013) Tracking the growth of synthetic biology: findings for 2013. http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6302/_draft/findings_2013.pdf. Accessed 17 Jun 2013

  • WS Atkins Environment (2002) Genetically modified organisms for the bioremediation of organic and inorganic pollutants: final report. WS Atkins Environment, United Kingdom. http://biotechawareness.com/index~option~com_content~view~article~id~136:genetically-modified-organisms-for-the-bioremediation-of-organic-and-inorganic-pollutants~catid~59:bioengineered-threats~Itemid~69.php. Accessed 17 Jun 2013

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following reviewers who provided invaluable insight and comments: Peter Carr, Cyd Hamilton, and Sarah Studer. In addition, the workshops which formed the basis of this paper would not have been achievable without the help of Patrick Boyle, Peter Carr, George Church, Dan Ducat, Steve Evans, David Hanselman, Stephen Laderman, Allen Lin, Gwen McClung, Larry McCray, Julie McNamara, Scott Mohr, Gautam Mukunda, Rebecca Ochoa, Mark Segal, Ralph Donald Turlington, Sarah Jane Vaughan, and Shlomiya Bar-Yam. This project was supported in part with the support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, National Science Foundation Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, and the US EPA. Views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US Department of State, US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Government, or any other organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA

    T. Kuiken & D. Rejeski

  2. Dana & Sharpe Risk Associates, Arlington, VA, USA

    G. Dana

  3. Engineering Systems Division and Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    K. Oye

Authors
  1. T. Kuiken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Dana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Oye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Rejeski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Kuiken.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuiken, T., Dana, G., Oye, K. et al. Shaping ecological risk research for synthetic biology. J Environ Stud Sci 4, 191–199 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0171-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0171-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation