As per the comments of Dr. Acevedo, my only concern regarding some perceptions raised during the C.P. negotiation on LMOs, is that with some frequency we escaped to dystopy, imagining dantescous risks and even disasters not compatible with the real nature of current LMOs.
This is the reason why I preach in favor of a stricto senso definition of "Synthetic Biology" and its relationship with Biodiversity. The coevolution of Artificial Biology/Artificial Intelligence with the native biodiversity will certainly raise intersting e even significant reasons for developing risk analysis and risk assessment.
Why? Because as an evolutionary species, H.sapiens has been able to not only compete - in the darwinian sense - but also intervene in the genetic structure of other organisms and populations. Now, H.sapiens is able to design, build and operate Artificial Biology with new modalities of built in intelligence. This is a very impressive evolutionary step.
I agree with Dr. Freemont on the convenience of examining historical parallel discussions and debates, in order to evitate some level of dystopy during the legislation construction.
As per the contribution of Dr. Then, I would suggest that the first part of his definiton about Synthetic Biology could be applied to conventional breeding and traditional biotechnology. Using maize as a simple example, when I create pure inbreds, then crossing them to make hybrids, I am interfering with the specie, varieties and native genotypes.
Dr. Heams presents the question: is SB necessary for society as a whole, or only for the biotech private companies ? I kindly suggest that the same question could be applied to smart phones. However, the usefulness of this new technology has been demonstrated.
Last, as per Dr. Oldam's definition of Synthetic Biology, I think that this is a definition for Biotech in general.
posted on 2015-05-10 23:15 UTC by Mr. Joaquim A. Machado, Brazil