Time to settle the synthetic biology controversy
Nature. 2014 May 8;509(7499):135. doi: 10.1038/509135a.
Two comments were prompted by this piece from ter Meulen.
Synthetic biology: Missing the point.
Evans SW and others.
Nature. 2014 Jun 12;510(7504):218. doi: 10.1038/510218b.
Synthetic biology: A global approach
Keasling JD and others
Nature 2014 Jun 12;510(7504):218. doi: 10.1038/510218c.
The first contains two sentences that are relevant to GOF-discussed.
“…supporting synthetic biology is not about making sure that science can go wherever it wants: it is about making the type of society people want to live in.”
“It is not unknown for scientists themselves to foster exaggeration and uncritical acceptance of claims, or to focus on anticipated benefits rather than on risks.”
Personal opinion
Synthetic biologists do not intend to make microbes that threaten humankind. If ever such an organism arose they may well be horrified. The intent of avian GOF influenza A virus research is to make novel viruses that are dangerous for humans with the idea of using them to develop vaccines and drugs, claims that do not hold water.
