Skip to main content

Synthetic Biology: Biosecurity and Biosafety Implications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Defense Against Biological Attacks

Abstract

Synthetic biology and other advanced biotechnologies hold a great deal of promise for medicine, public health, manufacturing, and national economies, but they also have biosafety and biosecurity implications. Using synthetic biology techniques, it is possible for a nefarious actor to acquire a viral pathogen made with chemically synthesized pieces, versus having to acquire samples of pathogens from an environmental source or from another laboratory. It is also possible to test many parallel approaches for designing new functions into existing pathogens, given that the costs of DNA synthesis continue to drop; this has dual-use implications for biodefense. These biosecurity concerns do not replace the existent challenges prior to the advent of synthetic biology but add to them, as early non-synthetic biology paths to biological weapons development are still able to be used to make biological weapons. In addition to biosecurity concerns, there are biosafety implications of synthetic biology, as the techniques are powerful, they may be used outside of traditional biocontainment, and because relative newcomers to biological containment are entering the field.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Synthetic Biology Project. What is synthetic biology? Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Doudna JA, Charpentier E. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014;346(6213):1258096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, §Sec. 817. Expansion of the biological weapons statute. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Federal Select Agent Program. Select agents and toxins list. 2017. http://www.selectagents.gov/SelectAgentsandToxinsList.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.

  5. The Australia Group. Common control lists. 2017. http://www.australiagroup.net/en/controllists.html. Accessed 16 July 2017.

  6. Rambhia KJ, Ribner AS, Gronvall GK. Everywhere you look: select agent pathogens. Biosecur Bioterror. 2011;9(1):69–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science. 2002;297(5583):1016–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wimmer E. The test-tube synthesis of a chemical called poliovirus. The simple synthesis of a virus has far-reaching societal implications. EMBO Rep. 2006;7(Spec No S3):3–S9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Smith HO, Hutchison CA 3rd, Pfannkoch C, Venter JC. Generating a synthetic genome by whole genome assembly: phiX174 bacteriophage from synthetic oligonucleotides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(26):15440–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tumpey TM, Basler CF, Aguilar PV, et al. Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science. 2005;310(5745):77–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Noyce RS, Lederman S, Evans DH. Construction of an infectious horsepox virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0188453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Koblentz GD. The de novo synthesis of horsepox virus: implications for biosecurity and recommendations for preventing the reemergence of smallpox. Health Secur. 2017;15(6):620–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Inglesby T. Important questions global health and science leaders should be asking in the wake of horsepox synthesis. The Bifurcated Needle; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DiEuliis D, Berger K, Gronvall G. Biosecurity implications for the synthesis of horsepox, an Orthopoxvirus. Health Secur. 2017;15(6):629–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hutchison CA, Chuang R-Y, Noskov VN, et al. Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science. 2016;(6280):351.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Venter JC, Gibson D. How we created the first synthetic cell. The Wall Street Journal; 2010, May 26 (Opinion).

    Google Scholar 

  17. J Craig Venter Institute. First self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell frequently asked questions. 2010. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell/faq. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.

  18. Pollack A. His corporate strategy: the scientific method. NY Times. 2010;5:BU1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. US Department of Health and Human Services. Screening framework guidance for providers of synthetic double-stranded DNA. Fed Regist. 2010;75(197):62820–32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. International Gene Synthesis Consortium (ICSC). Harmonized screening protocol: gene sequence & customer screening to promote biosecurity. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  21. International Gene Synthesis Consortium. International gene synthesis consortium updates screening protocols for synthetic DNA products and service. 2018, January 3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carter SR, Friedman RM. DNA synthesis and biosecurity: lessons learned and options for the future. San Diego: J. Craig Venter Institute; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dieuliis D, Carter SR, Gronvall GK. Options for synthetic DNA order screening, revisited. mSphere. 2017;2(4)

    Google Scholar 

  24. National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. A proposed framework for identifying potential biodefense vulnerabilities posed by synthetic biology: interim report. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Church G. De-extinction is a good idea. Scientific American; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cai Y, Agmon N, Choi WJ, et al. Intrinsic biocontainment: multiplex genome safeguards combine transcriptional and recombinational control of essential yeast genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(6):1803–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wade N. Synthetic bacterial genome takes over a cell, researchers report. NY Times; 2010, May 20, A17(L).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grant B. News in a nutshell. Scientist; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Craig Venter Institute. Press release: first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell. 2010, May 20.

    Google Scholar 

  30. DIYBio.org web page. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.

  31. Zayner J. Learn science by doing. 2016. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/diy-crispr-kits-learn-modern-science-by-doing#/. Accessed 25 Mar 2016.

  32. Baltimore Under Ground Science Space (BUGSS). BUGSS Safety Manual. 2012, July 1.

    Google Scholar 

  33. iGEM: Synthetic Biology Based on Standard Parts. 2015. http://igem.org/About. Accessed 1 Apr 2016.

  34. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Doing diligence to assess the risks and benefits of life sciences gain-of-function research. 2014, October 17.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gronvall GK. H5N1: a case study for dual-use research. Council on Foreign Relations Working Paper, 2013, July.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ritterson R, Casagrande R. Basic scholarship in biosafety is critically needed to reduce risk of laboratory accidents. mSphere. 2017;2(2):e00010–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gryphon Scientific. Risk and benefit analysis of gain of function research. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gronvall GK, Rozo M. Addressing the gap in international norms for biosafety. Trends Microbiol. 2015;23(12):743–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gronvall GK, Shearer M, Collins H. National biosafety systems. UPMC Center for Health Security; 2016, July.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gigi Kwik Gronvall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gronvall, G.K. (2019). Synthetic Biology: Biosecurity and Biosafety Implications. In: Singh, S., Kuhn, J. (eds) Defense Against Biological Attacks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03053-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics