| | english | español | français |
  Home|Synthetic Biology|Open-Ended Forum|Current Activities   Printer-friendly version

Current Activities of the Online Forum on Synthetic Biology

Return to the list of threads...
Forum closed. No more comments will be accepted on this forum.
Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8367]
Discussion can avoid equivocation when participants accept the same definition of the subject discussed. Decision XII/17 acknowledges an “operational definition” of synthetic biology that was crafted by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group  on Synthetic Biology (AHTEG).  The Decision reads: “synthetic biology is a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems”.  The Decision goes on to consider the definition “useful as a starting point for the purpose of facilitating scientific and technical deliberations under the Convention and its Protocols”. With respect to the third objective of the CBD, viz., fair and equitable ABS, the AHTEG definition is neither useful nor even operational.

The definition lacks any notion of genetic resources as information despite the association of synthetic biology with the “-omics” revolution.  Rapid technological advances have collapsed both the costs of sequencing and the determination of molecular structures, thereby allowing R&D on natural information transmitted digitally without the need to access “genetic material” or even to know its provenance.  Should a definition of synthetic biology recognize genetic resources as natural information, a policy for ABS would emerge from the application of the economics of information. The relevant literature was cited in numerous interventions in the 2013 Expert Forum of ABS-Clearing House Mechanism on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol (https://www.cbd.int/abs/benefitsharing-whatdone.shtml) Unfortunately, the CBD intralink to that discussion is broken (404 Error Message: Page Not Found). Fortunately, the updated argument can be found in the 2017 submission of a new and emerging issue for COPXIV: “Lawful Avoidance of ABS: Jurisdiction Shopping and Selection of non-Genetic-Material Media for Transmission” https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/SPDA-submission2017-05-en.pdf

Without ABS for synthetic biology, the first two objectives of the CBD, viz., conservation and sustainable use, are undercut.
posted on 2017-07-03 15:16 UTC by Mr. Joseph Henry Vogel, University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras
This is a reply to 8367 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8368]
Dear all,

I would like introduce myself, my name is Sergio Ricardo. I'm deputy director for genetic resources from Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico. I'm former National Expert for Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol.

The “operational definition” is a first step in this discussion. In my understanding, this is the moment to create a common language that permits technical approaches in this issue. I know, the forum must to be in accordance with the previous results de the AHTEG, including Decision XII/17. However, the lack of understanding can generate, as Mr. Henry said, forum shopping and treaty shopping derived from futures PIC and MAT. In my opinion, we must working on with the “operational definition” vis-à-vis the CBD system and others fora to be achieve the recent AHTEG mandate. For example, the lack of a complete definition in the CBD system permits that, at level contractual, the users and providers defines “synthetic biology” with different approaches and standards. These standards will create forum conveniens and forum non conveniens in legal terms.
posted on 2017-07-03 16:03 UTC by Mr. Sergio Ricardo Hernández-Ordoñez, Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources
This is a reply to 8368 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8370]
Hello All,

My name is Edward Hammond.  I direct a small consultancy, Prickly Research and am an advisor to Third World Network.  I was a member of the Synthetic Biology AHTEG that met prior the Cancun COP.

I concur with some of Dr. Vogel and Mr. Hernández-Ordoñez's observations with respect to getting down to making use of the present operational definition. 

I recall that the operational definition found favor among many AHTEG members because it was understood as technologically inclusive, and was thus thought to be able to encompass the full range of new technologies relevant to the Convention's objectives that fall within synthetic biology. It was also viewed positively because it was considered flexible and potentially able to encompass new developments.

I think that the AHTEG did well in its recommendations to seek to ensure that important technologies were not left out and loopholes were not created.  Maintaining the technological breadth of the operational definition is important as the discussion advances, however we proceed, and I submit that we should be vigilant against (inadvertently) leaving important technologies out.

Having said that, at the time of the last online forum and at the AHTEG meeting itself, I advanced the notion of texts with a scope that refers to the physical materials themselves, rather than (or to supplement) the characterizations of scientific intent present in the operational definition.

That is, for example, to say that use of organisms, components, or products that contain synthetic nucleotides, or which are produced using synthetic nucleotides (including progeny thereof) is synthetic biology.

Such an approach may not wholly resolve Dr. Vogel's concerns, and may be supplemented by other approaches, but perhaps he would agree that it could capture some of his concerns with respect to information, which I share.

It think these three opening comments are particularly closely linked to Casper's third guiding question.  Certainly, the combination of a) cheap and fast sequencing with b) synthesis up to an including whole organisms is creating a different environment for implementation of the Convention's objectives, particularly ABS, than that which existed in the early 1990s ... back when many of us first waded into these issues.

Edward Hammond
posted on 2017-07-03 17:09 UTC by Mr. Edward Hammond, Third World Network
This is a reply to 8370 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8371]
Dear Members,
Good morning from India. I’m Yasin Jeshima, scientist from ICAR-NBPGR, New Delhi. I’m new to this forum.
I appreciate the observations registered by the members in good turn for operational definition. Synthetic biology is an emerging science and we may reframe the operational definition when and where required so that there may not be any ambiguity left unattended.
Hence, we may initiate to frame a new operational definition with specific terms “germplasm and biodiversity”.
We may propose to modify the definition akin to “synthetic biology is an applied modern life science that combines genetic resources and technology to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems for the direct benefit of the mankind without altering or by enriching the biodiversity”.
posted on 2017-07-03 19:11 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8371 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8372]
Dear Members,

Myself, Dr. Mukesh Thakur, Scientist at Zoological survey of India a new member to the forum. I believe the operational definition in its current context is clear as usage of the term "Synthetic Biology" has expanded to many interdisciplinary fields, it has been defined as the artificial design and engineering of biological systems and living organisms for purposes of improving applications for industry or biological research. However, in India not much research has been carried out so far on the application of synthetic biology tools for the biodiversity conservation and management and I believe the scenario is pretty similar in many part of the world. Nevertheless, we in India have been identified several strains of bacteria & fungi that have profound unique characteristics to deteriorate or bio-accumulate the heavy metals or insecticides from the polluted water and soil. Several premium institutes in India are working on it since decades but I am sure with this form will enable most of our representative countries to develop a unified protocols and projects that might be implemented at several places to use synthetic biology tools for biodiversity conservation and management.

looking forward to read the interesting ideas..
thanks & Regards,
Mukesh
posted on 2017-07-04 05:26 UTC by Mr. Mukesh Thakur, Zoological Survey of India
This is a reply to 8372 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8373]
Dear Members,

I support the views presented by Mr.Vogel and Mr.Ricardo. There is a need to improve the operational definition as a first step.

thanks
posted on 2017-07-04 05:45 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8373 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8374]
Good Morning! I am Melanie Josefsson of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. I have participated in the last CBD COPs and SBSTTAs where synthetic biology has been dealt with.
The members of the working Group at SBSTTA20 and COP13 were very clear in that we should use the definition proposed by the AHTEG and move on to other questions. Although the definition is not perfect, there is risk that the discussion will become bogged down in an eternal effort to perfect it.

It is valuable to identify the weak points of the operational definition, but in the spirit of moving on to deal with the task appointed to us, I suggest we use the operational definition and see how far we can go with it.
posted on 2017-07-04 08:04 UTC by Ms. Melanie Josefsson, Sweden
This is a reply to 8374 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8375]
Dear members
Ms. Melanie has given a wonderful suggestion. We may just fit in the add-ons and deletions in the existing operational definition. If members concur then we may move forward for the next task assigned to us. But working with an incomplete definition may not serve the purpose. Hence, instead of discussing whether to modify or not, we may propose the expected changes today. Tomorrow will start directly the assigned task.
My opinion is to add “genetic material” and “biodiversity” in the existing operational definition without which discussing ABS may not be complete.
thanks
posted on 2017-07-04 08:24 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8375 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8376]
Dear colleagues,

my name is Helmut Gaugitsch and I am working inter alia in the field of biosafety at the Environment Agency Austria.

I would like to fully support the plea and recommendation made by Melanie Josefsson from Sweden.

In my mind COP-13 in its decision XIII/17 on synthetic biology has been very clear concerning the operational definition "considering it useful as a starting point for the purpose of facilitating scientific and technical deliberations under the Convention and its Protocols". I think that as an online Forum we cannot make changes to this operational definition which is the result of lengthy discussions at the AHTEG, SBSTTA and the COP. What we can do if needed - along the sidelines of our discussions - is to provide observations and recommendations on how the operational definition could be further improved in the future.

But according to the opening message of our esteemed moderator, our main task in this round is different. I suggest that we go back to the three guiding questions our moderator has so clearly raised at the beginning and try to provide answers or observations to those on the basis of the current operational defintion which we have.

I am looking forward to our further discussions on this important matter.

Kind regards
Helmut Gaugitsch
posted on 2017-07-04 08:47 UTC by Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch, Austria
This is a reply to 8374 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8377]
Dear all, there are obviously many views on the operational definition that was proposed by the AHTEG and subsequently discussed both at SBSTTA and COP13. Remember that this operational definition is the result of lengthy negotiations. IT IS A COMPROMISE! In this online discussion we are not to revise this definition. We leave it as it is, as Melanie just proposed, and concentrate on the three guiding questions. It may not be perfect to some, and I fully understand that, but please, may I ask you to shed light on synthetic biology starting off with the three guiding questions that I put forward yesterday. All the best,
Casper
posted on 2017-07-04 08:54 UTC by Mr. Casper Linnestad, Norway
This is a reply to 8376 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8378]
Myself Dr. Gurinderjit Randhawa, Principal Scientist, ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi.
I agree with Melanie Josefsson having huge experience of working on several dimensions of synthetic biology with the last CBD COPs and SBSTTAs. As he mentioned that the members of the working Group at SBSTTA 20 and COP13 suggested that using the definition proposed by the AHTEG (though not perfect) we need to work on other related emerging issues. Otherwise this on-line discussion would not be achieving its purpose and we will keep delving into definition over and again.
We need to move on further then we can propose if the need be relevant changes in the definition.
posted on 2017-07-04 08:54 UTC by Ms. Gurinder Jit Randhawa, ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
This is a reply to 8377 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8379]
I completely agree with Casper. We need to move forward to address three guiding questions.
posted on 2017-07-04 08:59 UTC by Ms. Gurinder Jit Randhawa, ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
This is a reply to 8379 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8380]
Hello!

I fully agree with Ms Gurinder. For now, let us give our opinion on the questions asked.
posted on 2017-07-04 09:28 UTC by Mr. Freddy Bulubulu, Democratic Republic of the Congo
This is a reply to 8380 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8381]
Thank you all!
Helmut's suggestion is also very constructive. As he pointed out, we do not need to exclude the possibility that we also can make observations on how the operational definition could be improved in the future. Please keep in mind however, that this may also easily sidetrack our discussions!
Casper
posted on 2017-07-04 09:44 UTC by Mr. Casper Linnestad, Norway
This is a reply to 8367 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8382]
Dear All,
My name is Mart Loog, from Estonian Centre for Synthetic Biology.
I agree with those who suggested that we should move on with the discussion and use the definition as it is. The regulations about the use digital sequence information from genetic resources is not very well defined for the term to be included in the definition. It may totally confuse the field and if consequently regulated without considering all variations and technical aspects it may seriously harm science.
Best regards,
Mart
posted on 2017-07-04 11:05 UTC by Mr. Mart Loog, Estonia
This is a reply to 8382 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8383]
Dear Members,
I agree with the overall member’s opinion of side tracking the definition.

Then we may focus the discussion specifically on how developments within the field of synthetic biology could lead to impacts on biodiversity as earlier mentioned by Mr.Casper.

Instead of registering the random view points, we may go by topic wise as the first could be “the conservation of biological diversity”. 

thanks
posted on 2017-07-04 11:25 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8381 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8386]
Dear colleagues,
my name is Martin Batic and I’m working in the field of biosafety at the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment.
As a chair of the last AHTEG SynBio meeting in Montreal in 2015 I could still remember long discussion related to the “operational” definition on synthetic biology and dilemmas among the AHTEG members because it is a broad term that refers to a wide range of disciplines, techniques, potential applications and end products. The outcome was the “operational” definition (though not perfect) which should be understood in the context of the objectives of the Convention.
We should also have in mind in our on-line discussions that at the last COP13, “operational” definition on synthetic biology was recognized as useful starting point for the further facilitating scientific and technical deliberations (Decision XIII/17).
Saying that, I agree with those who suggested that using the “operational” definition (could be improved in the future) we need to work on other related emerging issues. I propose that for the time being we focus our on-line discussions on suggested questions which were put forward and not on definition "per se".
With best wishes,
Martin
posted on 2017-07-04 13:12 UTC by Mr. Martin Batič, Slovenia
This is a reply to 8386 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8387]
Mr. Martin,
Thanks for the valuable remarks. We may now move to topic 1 in the following thread
http://bch.cbd.int/synbio/open-ended/discussion/?threadid=8384. Mr. Taye, has already initiated the discussion aligned with other member’s suggestions.

thanks
posted on 2017-07-04 13:29 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8367 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8388]
Can we all please make sure to define acronyms, readers to this forum come from varied backgrounds (viz. "ABS")
posted on 2017-07-04 17:52 UTC by Mr. Michael Skinner, Imperial College London
This is a reply to 8388 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8389]
Mr. Michael,
I could see only this many at present used in this discussion. If added we may write them in full for those who need it.
ABS- Access and Benefit Sharing
AHTEG - Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (on Synthetic Biology)
BCH- Bio-safety Clearing House
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity
COP – Conference Of Parties
MTA- Material Transfer Agreement
SBSTTA- Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
Thanks
posted on 2017-07-04 18:38 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8389 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8390]
Synthetic biology is as a foundation. Simply, the mature stage of the recombinant DNA technology.

On the basis of our present knowledge, one can expect that our civilisation, in future decades, will be able to domesticate a number of so far unused biological functions by genetic engineering/synthetic biology, and this may serve to benefit mankind and/or the environment. This approach can contribute positively to long-term sustainable development, if the envisaged
projects are in line with ethical concepts as well as being carefully and responsibly evaluated before being implemented.
posted on 2017-07-04 19:05 UTC by Mr. Elibio Rech, Brazil
This is a reply to 8367 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8391]
Dear all,

this is Ryo Kohsaka from Japan, Tohoku University and I am a member of the AHTEG last time and I also had the honor to chair the online forum last time.

Stability in the institutional settings and clear guidance for the future outlook are critical for stakeholders.

I agree, therefore,  that the operational definition should be left as is and  it would be constructive to focus on the latest development of the relevant issue.
posted on 2017-07-05 00:56 UTC by Mr. Ryo Kohsaka, Japan
This is a reply to 8367 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8393]
Messages [#8374], [#8377], [#8378], [#8379] [#8383], [#8386], [#8387] and [#8391] in the thread of [#8367] lend themselves to analysis. One may discern various fallacies in the defense of the AHTEG definition. Listed below is the name of the fallacy followed by its manifestation in the messages.

Naturalistic Fallacy: The AHTEG definition exists and therefore should be [#8391]. Not only scientists but even jurists have recognized that “stare decisis” (stand by the decision) is unscientific. Science does not advance through “COMPROMISES” (upper case in original [#8377]) but through logic and evidence;

Non sequitur:  Because costs were incurred in “lengthy negotiations” [#8376],[#8377]  at the AHTEG, the resulting definition is useful and operational.  Economists would classify such justification as the (Marxian) labor theory of value;

Slippery slope: If participants were to examine the AHTEG definition, the examination would “easily sidetrack our discussions!” [#8381][#8383][#8380].  Raising fears as to an unknown outcome reinforces the tendency to commit the naturalistic fallacy and accept the non sequitur;

Red Herring: Rather than address the substance of [#8367], a factual error is introduced which will distract participants: that [#8367] is somehow off topic. Message [#8377] urges that we “concentrate on the three guiding questions”. Message [#8379] pleas  that “we need to move forward to address three guiding questions”. Message [#8378] similarly states “that using the definition proposed by the AHTEG (though not perfect), we need to work on other related emerging issues”.  For anyone who is so persuaded by the aforementioned messages, please re-read the penultimate paragraph of the original message [#8367]: “Should a definition of synthetic biology recognize genetic resources as natural information, a policy for ABS would emerge from the application of the economics of information”. The message concludes by referencing an emerging issue proposed for COPXIV, viz. “Lawful Avoidance of ABS: Jurisdiction Shopping and Selection of non-Genetic-Material Media for Transmission”(in English:  https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/SPDA-submission2017-05-en.pdf  or in Spanish: https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/SPDA-submission2017-05-es.pdf )

To correct the AHTEG definition is an armchair exercise in logic; to have the corrected definition accepted at the COP will be a painful political process.  On the latter point, I suspect a resounding consensus. The five rules from formal logic to craft definitions may offer direction on the road ahead for policymaking:

Rule 1:  A definition should state the essential aspects of the species;
Rule 2:  A definition must not be circular;
Rule 3:  A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow;
Rule 4: Ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language must not be used in a definition;
Rule 5: A definition should not be negative when it can be affirmative (Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 2010: 97-98).

As mentioned in Message [#8367], Rule 1 is grossly violated by the absence of “information” in the AHTEG definition. Comments from other participants suggest that the definition is also too broad, thereby violating Rule 3 [#8370][#8386]. The  prominence of the adjective “new” in the definition is ambiguous as time proceeds, thereby violating Rule 4. One must take stock: violation of the majority of the Rules is a remarkable failure. How did it happen? Leaving this prickly question unattended and hastily “moving on” [#8387] may prove tragic.

The abstract reasoning afforded by economics is both useful and operational. Economics recognizes that “market failure” is too often “cost-shifting success” and “government failure”, “regulatory capture”. Thinking like an economist, the failure of the AHTEG to craft a definition which abides by Rules 1, 3 and 4 may not have been a failure at all. Inclusion of  “genetic materials”  in the definition of synthetic biology means that transboundary resources do not exist. Unlike information, matter cannot be in two places at once. So, the lawful avoidance of ABS for synthetic biology can proceed through jurisdiction shopping and/or selection of non-genetic-material media for the transmission of natural information.

Contrary to “In this online discussion we are not to revise this definition [#8377]” is the FRAMEWORK status of the CBD (please grant me the indulgence to reciprocate with capitalization). Foundational errors can be corrected as long as they are not ignored or suppressed.
posted on 2017-07-05 12:42 UTC by Mr. Joseph Henry Vogel, University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras
This is a reply to 8393 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8394]
Mr. Vogel,
Thanking you for detailed analyses. But I should register my reply to the statement (“One must take stock: violation of the majority of the Rules is a remarkable failure. How did it happen? Leaving this prickly question unattended and hastily “moving on” [#8387] may prove tragic”); such a side tracking was the result of all members suggestions. Members neither supported nor proposed any modification. The most important thing what I have to appreciate is “Foundational errors can be corrected as long as they are not ignored or suppressed”. I hope many of the members accepted that the definition is not perfect.
Approval of a modified new definition is a second question. But at this stage, in a discussion we might have moved ahead with a perfect one.
The most important fact is, still at the end of second day, we are discussing whether to modify or not. Instead, if we proposed add-ins and deletions yesterday itself, by this time we may be having a wonderful definition of our own and moved ahead to topic 1 which was already initiated. I feel now the topic 1 has been side tracked.
thanks
posted on 2017-07-05 13:37 UTC by Ms. Jeshima k Yasin, India
This is a reply to 8391 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8396]
Myself, Dr. Josephine Therese Makueti, Scientist at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit of Cameroon, Central Africa. National Focal Point for Synthetic Biology. I happily participated to the last online forum and took part to the last AHTEG meeting at Montreal Canada in September 2015.
I fully agree with previous participants who suggested that we need to move forward to address three guiding questions.
posted on 2017-07-05 14:27 UTC by Ms. Makueti Josephine Therese, Cameroon
This is a reply to 8396 RE: Genetic Resources as Natural Information, Missing from the AHTEG Operational Definition of Synthetic Biology [#8429]
My name is Leonardo Bocanegra and participated as member the last AHTEG SynBio meeting in Montreal in 2015.

In relation to the topic indicated, I consider that the definition proposed by the AHTEG manages to address the main topics required, including the reference to genetic resources as natural information, due to this is a comprehensive definition. However, given the nature of synthetic biology and in many cases the universality of knowledge associated with the description of functional and structural genomics, we can contemplate both scenarios (genetic information used is 100% natural or is the product of computational modeling on metabolic balancing that can be developed from the different matrices of stoichiometry that can be obtained from different databases). I believe that this is a bottleneck, due to a detailed definition as such could lead to complex the practical application, by including both the aims and the technique
posted on 2017-07-06 16:28 UTC by Mr. José Leonardo Bocanegra Silva, Colombia
This is a reply to 8396 Topic 1 [#8459]
Hello

I am Carlos Augusto Ospina Bravo, Biologist, Ms.C in Microbiology, I work as a professional specialized in the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia.

Following the topic of discussion of topic 1.

Taking into account that there is still no clarity on the adverse effects that developments derived from synthetic biology can have, because it is a complex and recent area, it is possible to make an analysis of what has been developed and to think about the possible effects that could Have for biodiversity, some of the negative effects could be:

• If the production of applications in synthetic biology expands significantly, both intentional and involuntary environmental impacts could be important. For example, the production of biofuels.

• Possible future applications of synthetic biology that could be beneficial to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as microorganisms designed for bioremediation, to improve agricultural efficiency, to stop desertification, to cure wildlife diseases, Etc., would require the release into the environment of micro-organisms resulting from synthetic biology techniques.
posted on 2017-07-07 20:52 UTC by Mr. Carlos Augusto Ospina Bravo, Colombia