Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Engineering Biology

The time is now for developing biology into a full-fledged engineering field.

By Jay Keasling

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Synthetic biology seeks to design and construct biological components that can be modeled, understood, tuned to meet specific criteria, and assembled into larger integrated systems that solve specific problems. Such capabilities could transform biology in the way that integrated-circuit design transformed computing. Researchers could redesign enzymes, genetic circuits, and cells to their specifications, or even build biological systems from scratch.

Scientists have already made significant strides toward engineering microörganisms that produce ethanol, bulk chemicals, and drugs from inexpensive starting materials (see "From the Labs"). The work has been slow, however, in large part because engineers lack the tools to easily and predictably reprogram existing systems, let alone build new ones.

One problem is that the development of system components -- genetic circuits, metabolic pathways, parts of enzymes -- receives little emphasis in biology. Biologists who want to control gene expression, for example, usually use natural systems or slight variations on them. Although these redesigned biological control systems have generally served biologists' intended purposes (for example, production of a single pharmaceutical protein), they are often inadequate for more complicated engineering tasks.

Another problem is that there are few or no standards for biological components. In almost every other field of engineering, standardization makes it easy to combine parts made by different manufacturers. A similar system of standards that governs how biological components should work together would help biologists and biological engineers to design and build new devices.

Finally, of the biological components that are already available, many of the most effective have been patented. Open-source biological parts and devices, and eventually whole cells, could lead to engineered biological systems that are cheaper and better designed.

Standardized, readily available biological components, developed under an appropriate intellectual-property model, would open a promising new front in the biotechnology industry. Given the potential of synthetic biology, it is in our best interest to work out these details soon.

Jay Keasling is a professor of chemical engineering and bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

July/August 2006

Would you like to read more articles from the July/August 2006 issue?

This article is from the July/August 2006 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Bioengineering is the Future
    Guest (Parijata Mackey) on 07/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I agree 100%, biology needs to at long last realize its full potential, and emerge as the most powerful of the engineering sciences. I'd do whatever it took to make this happen...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (Ben) on 08/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Would you eat you own head?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re:
        Parijata on 01/28/2007 at 3:02 PM
        Posts:
        4
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        Good point. Or it would be if there were no grammar errors ;-)

        But seriously, I'd do a fair amount of work (that didn't involve eating people's heads) to give biology that extra boost it needs to become a computational science.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • biology is standard
    Guest (bio boy) on 07/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The author complains that there is not much standardization in biology, which is not true. Most biological systems are standard by nature, because they evolved from each other. DNA is standard, RNA is standard, a vast number of proteins are standard, and most other biochemical components are standard. Most signaling and methabolic pathways are standard. Subcelullar organelles are standard, cells and organs are standard etc. etc. You can mix and match things almost as you wish, like in a LEGO game...What more standard would you want? The real problem is that due to the complexity of these systems, our tinkering always gives unexpected side results. But our inability to to handle these systems does not mean they are not standard. These self-assembling systems are very much standardized.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • need for simpler model systems
      Guest (dmm) on 07/31/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      "bio boy" makes a great point.  I think what the author is really lamenting is that the simplest model systems currently available are still extremely complex, so that you can't just put organisms together like Lego (TM).  Granted, "going lean" is one (fairly successful) survival approach that some organisms already use.  Unfortunately for engineering biology, it seems likely that, in an uncontrolled environment, there is no more "wiggle room" left.  The "simplifier" organisms have simplified all they can.  However, fortunately for engineering biology, we are not constrained by environmental limitations.  We can set up an artificial environment that (hopefully) will allow the discovery/evolution/engineering of much simpler organisms.  Perhaps they will be more "mix and match" than even the simplest wild microbes.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • standards at ever-higher levels of abstraction
      Guest (marsdrummer) on 08/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      bioboy is right that biology follows "standards" at the molecular level -- all life uses the same four DNA bases and, a level of abstraction above that, the same codon-amino acid translation rules. Even on the level of genes, we have some inter-species standards -- homolog genes that are identical or nearly so in many animals. But what biology lacks today (and what synthetic biology seeks) are standards one more level up, on the level of functions: genes that encode proteins that create organisms that perform abstract functions in a predictable way. Just as we did with electronics (materials to components to chips to software to software modules) we need to standardize each level -- remove the uncertainty and make it predictable -- so that we can engineer at the level above it.
      Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review July/August 2008
The Business of Social Networks
The future of the Web is social. But can social-networking sites ever make money?
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology