Miriam Goldstein

November 6, 2012

Wheres the Spark?: Exploring Synthetic Biologys Role in the Creation of Life
When Gregory Kaebnick, in Of Microbes and Men, suggests that there is a difference
between creating a living organism and creating Lifeif one believes that Life comes only from
God, he aims to refute the notion that synthetic biology allows scientists to play God. Even if
a religion opposes the idea of humans creating Life-possessing higher organisms, Kaebnick
reasons, it will not object to the creation of microbes because the view that humans dare not
create any living organisms does not appear to be widely held in religious traditions (27). On
the other hand, one could just as easily propose that the issue with synthetic biologists playing
God comes not from the creation of living organisms but from the creation of the animate from
the inanimate (Dabrock 48). One popular religious belief does seem to conflict with the notion
that animate life forms can be born from inanimate elements: creationism. If synthetic biology
really does form life from nonlife, the creationist belief could threaten Kaebnicks position.
However, although synthetic biology may involve the creation of novel genomes, existing cells
are still employed in the process. These part man-made, part natural creatures that are born in the
synthetic biology lab could not exist without a little help from preexisting life (Mooallem 42).
Consequently, the creationist argument does not defeat Kaebnicks because a complete inanimate
to animate transformation has yet to be demonstrated by synthetic biology. To accept the notion
that synthetic biology has demonstrated this transformation, one would have to suggest that it is
DNA over any other property that gives a living organism its animate quality, but that is
incorrect. This paper will begin with a section explaining what synthetic biology means at its
highest level of potential controversy, and more specifically, how it differs from earlier forms of
genetic engineering. Then, a second section will examine both the evolutionist and creationist
views of the microbes origins, verifying the incompatibility of these belief systems. Finally, the
paper will end by demonstrating why the creationist objection does not adequately defeat
Kaebnicks argument.
Although, as Kaebnick mentions, there is no universal agreement on what synthetic
biology is (25), one of its dimensions can be defined with a fair degree of certainty: Synthetic
biology is not a new science but instead a more sophisticated form of genetic engineering.
Whereas genetic engineering involves the transplantation of genes from one organism to another,
synthetic biology goes a step further. It entails the production of brand-new genetic code,
sometimes constructed entirely from scratch. While genetic engineering, much like evolution,
must work with those parts of nature that exist, the possibilities for synthetic biology are
boundless. Synthetic biology must not adhere to any readymade constructions and can
theoretically create any structure whose production can be directed by DNA (Mooallem 42). In
fact, it is possible to equate synthetic biologists with software designers in the sense that new
life forms can be designed by writing programs in the quaternary code of the four DNA
nucleotides (van den Belt 259). By working as the designer of new life, synthetic biology
moves much closer to having the power of the divine.
The designing of new organisms that can occur with synthetic biology could be
considered much more threatening than the mere manipulation of genes that goes along with
genetic engineering, although genetic engineering did once elicit the same cries of playing God
(van den Belt 260). Why would creationists and other opponents of evolution find more of a
problem with synthetic biology than genetic engineering? Does genetic engineering not also
piece together bits of DNA, which by itself is nonliving, to form a living creature? Unlike
synthetic biology though, the segments of DNA that genetic engineering uses come from
naturally-occurring life forms. Genetic engineering, therefore, could be interpreted as nothing
1

Miriam Goldstein

November 6, 2012

more than an extension of humankinds co-creatorship with God, a partnership concurrent with
the biblical notion that humans should take part in ruling over the earth (Dabrock 49). This cocreatorship encompasses everything from selective breeding of plants and animals to the
creation of ones own offspring. In each of these examples, life only comes from the alreadyliving. Synthetic biology, on the other hand, at least in part creates life from that which has never
been living before: DNA segments produced from chemical compounds (van den Belt 259).
The idea that life forms can come from chemicals alone fits with the evolutionary theory
of the creation of the world and its living organisms. The theory of evolution proposes that the
earliest life forms arose approximately 3.9 billion years ago in a process called abiogenesis
the generation of life from non-living matter. The mix of chemicals in the atmosphere (plus
water) had allowed the basic building blocks of life including amino acids, sugars, and
nucleotides to come together and form unicellular microbes, no different in structure from the
ones currently being created by synthetic biologists (Lal 268-269). An opponent of evolution
might see synthetic biology as blasphemous, noting that if biology is the story of the
sacrosanct plan of an omniscient being, rather than the vicissitudes of natural selection, humans
have a hard time explaining why they are tinkering with the works (McGee 28). Because the
theory of evolution supposes that life originated from inorganic matter and did not come from
God, creationists may contest it on the grounds that it goes against the biblical conviction that
God is the Lord of life and the only one who can give life (Dabrock 49). Likewise, they may
not accept synthetic biology, not because they do not believe that it is possible but because it
goes against their belief that God is the only one who should create life from nonlife (McGee
28).
Even if creationists oppose human production of animate life from inanimate nonlife, this
does not mean that they can argue definitively that synthetic biology amounts to playing God,
because synthetic biology has yet to create a living organism completely from scratch. In fact,
only 1% of the dry weight of a new cell created by synthetic biology is synthetic. One could
consider this 1%, the genetic information of the cell, to be the most important, for it controls
everything, from the cells structure to its functioning (Bedau 422). Indeed, no living organism
can function without its DNA because it would be unable to direct the creation of the proteins
that it needs to survive or even come to be. However, DNA cannot produce proteins alone.
Without ribosomes, the protein builders of the cell, only a virus would exist. Viruses cannot grow
or reproduce without using the ribosomes and chemicals of a host cell, so they are not even
living according to lifes biological definition (Chiras 275). In order to be considered living,
therefore, a cell must possess more than just DNA. Consequently, one cannot prove that DNA is
what makes an organism animate any more than one can suggest that a human can live without
one of his or her vital organs. Just as the brain, the control center of the human, would not
survive without the heart, the DNA, the control center of all cells, does not produce living
microbes without ribosomes. Because the ribosomes of the synthetic microbes still come from
naturally-produced cells, one cannot argue that the animate has been created from the completely
inanimate. Up to this point, synthetic biology still involves inserting a lab-synthesized genome
into an existing cell, complete with its own ribosomes and all other necessary substrates of life.
Not only can synthetic biology not create a complete living organism from scratch, but
the part of the organism it does create, the genome, is not even original. The insertion of
chemically-synthesized DNA into cells has resulted in living microbes, but the DNA sequence,
although man-made, is not unique. Current synthetic biologists act more like scribes than
authors because they dont understand biology well enough to start designing genomes de
2

Miriam Goldstein

November 6, 2012

novo. To even get to the point where they could declare a microbe with a copied genome to be
alive took synthetic biologists 15 years (Baker 403-404). These scientists had only copied Gods
work, and yet they still could not create life with the speed of God. Indeed, according to
creationists, God had already formed all of the vegetation on Earth the first biblicallymentioned examples of living organisms by the third day of creation (New Oxford Annotated
Bible, Genesis 1:11-13). In the end, synthetic biologists still do not know how to animate just
anything, and even if they did, they could not do so with anywhere near Gods efficiency. As of
now, God still retains the monopoly on life production. Perhaps God is the only one who can
design a viable creature. At any rate, synthetic biology has not proven that humans can, so
Kaebnicks argument survives.
44% of the U.S. population does not believe in evolution (McGee 28). Synthetic biology,
therefore, could have a large audience to upset. Fortunately though, as explained in this paper,
synthetic biologists do not have the power to play God just yet. However, as it attempts to
progress even further, synthetic biology could run into trouble. Indeed, its ultimate goal is to
transition from the top-down approach (combining the synthetic with the preexisting)
employed by current synthetic biologists to a bottom-up method that results in protocells,
cells created from only materials that were never alive (Bedau et al. 65-66). When this
happens, it will be more difficult to claim that synthetic biologists have not taken on the role of
God. But even then, organisms could not be created from complete nothingness. Humans would
still have to wonder at who created the chemicals that the synthetic biologists must use to create
the building blocks of life and subsequently life itself. Nothing, in the end, is completely
original. The search for the author of it all will continue ad infinitum.

Miriam Goldstein

November 6, 2012

Works Cited
Baker, Monya. "The Next Step for the Synthetic Genome." Nature 473.7347 (2011): 403408. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Bedau, Mark. "Life After the Synthetic Cell: The Power and the Pitfalls." Nature 465.7297
(2010): 422-424. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Bedau, Mark A., et al. "Social and Ethical Checkpoints for Bottom-Up Synthetic Biology, Or
Protocells." Systems and Synthetic Biology 3.1-4 (2009): 65-75. ProQuest Central. Web.
4 Nov. 2012.
Chiras, Daniel D. Human Biology. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012. Print.
Dabrock, Peter. "Playing God? Synthetic Biology as a Theological and Ethical Challenge."
Systems and Synthetic Biology 3.1-4 (2009): 47-54. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Kaebnick, Gregory E. "Of Microbes and Men." The Hastings Center Report 41.4 (2011): 25-28.
Lal, Ashwini Kumar. "Origin of Life." Astrophysics and Space Science 317.3-4 (2008): 267278. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
McGee, Glenn. "Design: More Intelligent Every Day: Synthetic biology requires intelligent
design, but not the kind they teach in Kansas." The Scientist Jan. 2006: 28. General
OneFile. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Mooallem, Jon. "Do-it-Yourself Genetic Engineering." New York Times Magazine Feb 14 2010:
40-45. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012 .
The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New York: Oxford University, 2007. Print.
van den Belt, Henk. "Playing God in Frankenstein's Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the
Meaning of Life." Nanoethics 3.3 (2009): 257-268. ProQuest Central. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.