THE enfant terrible of genomics is at it again. First Craig Venter鈥檚 company Celera raced publicly funded researchers to sequence the human genome. Now his research institute is trying to patent a 鈥渕inimal genome鈥�, which could be used to make synthetic life forms.
The ETC Group, which is concerned about the societal and environmental implications of new technologies, fears that Venter will create a 鈥淢icrobesoft鈥� monopoly in the burgeoning area of synthetic biology 鈥� a supercharged form of biotechnology that aims to create living 鈥渕achines鈥� (麻豆传媒, 20 May 2006, p 43). The patent application has also annoyed biologists who are trying to foster an open-source movement. But the claim that Venter is about to become the Bill Gates of synthetic biology is wide of the mark, say his scientific rivals.
鈥淚t鈥檚 the philosophical stake in the ground that will really tick people off,鈥� says Tom Knight, a synthetic biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 鈥淭he good news is that what they鈥檙e claiming is a lot more limited than people realise.鈥�
Advertisement
The US patent application, which comes from Hamilton Smith鈥檚 team at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, claims ownership of a set of less than 400 genes required to sustain a free-living microbe. The patent states that a synthetic genome bearing the genes could be inserted into a bacterium stripped of its own DNA. The idea is that this bacterium will become a 鈥渃hassis鈥� for a synthetic organism carrying genetic circuits with novel functions. The patent also claims a specific application: producing ethanol or hydrogen for fuel.
鈥淲e believe these monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to synthesise and privatise synthetic life forms,鈥� says Jim Thomas, an ETC researcher based in Montreal, Canada.
鈥淲e believe these monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to privatise synthetic life forms鈥�
But George Church, a synthetic biologist at Harvard University, predicts that many in the field will prefer to build their living machines using a standard bacterium such as Escherichia coli. And even if they do want to build a stripped-down synthetic organism, it should be relatively easy to sidestep the patent. Venter鈥檚 own group published a paper on a slighty larger minimal genome in 1999, placing that information in the public domain. This means you could get round the patent simply by packing a synthetic genome with a few dozen more genes, says Knight.
The patent also gives no details on how to create a synthetic organism. 鈥淚 would be perfectly happy filing a patent on mechanisms of creating an organism of this kind,鈥� says Knight. 鈥淭hat is not what this is.鈥�
Venter could not be reached for comment before 麻豆传媒 went to press, but rumours are circulating that his institute will soon unveil the first synthetic bacterium.
