Geoengineering and synthetic biology

This September, as part of our annual symposium, EUSynBioS will hold an Open Discussion on the topic, "Synthetic Biology and Environmental Engineering", at the National Center for Biotechnology, Madrid, Spain. We will host experts in the field to talk about the science and the more difficult aspects of public acceptance and bioethics surrounding geoengineering and synthetic biology. 


Geoengineering is a word that means many things to many people. Formally defined as the "deliberate intervention in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming", for some scientists it represents a cheap and effective way to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change. To others it's symptomatic of technological hubris: a grand, doomed plan to control every aspect of our ecosystem. Dig past the rhetoric though and you find a science that's still in infancy, being developed by scientists around the globe, almost as a last resort in the (now very possible) event that on-going efforts to avert climate catastrophe by reducing global emissions fail.

Current research on geoengineering is focused on either removing carbon dioxide from the Earth's atmosphere or reducing global warming by reflecting more solar radiation away from the planet. Most proposals to achieve these goals rely on physical engineering solutions, cloud seeding for instance. A more expansive reading of "geoengineering"though, leads to several intriguing ideas on using synthetic biology to remedy the effects of intensive industrialisation/pollution on the environment.

i. pale blue dot

In 1980, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that changed the status of living organisms forever. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty the court affirmed the right of inventors to patent living organisms that had been modified for some purpose. In this case, the patent was granted to a genetically engineered creature called the Superbug. The Superbug was a strain of Pseudonomas putida that could break down crude oil, and was posited as a tool to deal with oil spills. Since then, there's been a lot of work in developing such organisms, spawning a field of science called bioremediation that seeks to undo the damage human industry causes the environment. 

Now, a group of scientists are advocating the use of such organisms on a global scale to help mitigate the effects of climate change. Their, very SciFi-ish, ideas include: modifying particular species of bacteria that exist in harsh environments like deserts and equipping them with water harvesting capabilities; releasing entire stretches of DNA into a biosphere and allowing them to spread, equipping any host creature with water/temperature sensing capabilities, or releasing bacteria into the oceans that can cause pieces of plastic to stick to each other, solving the scourge of microplastic pollution. 

biologists are ever-aware of the conceit involved in predicting biological futures

These and other ideas find few takers though, and carry some real risks. We would have to be prepared to deal with the fact that any man-made bacteria released into a particular part of the world might escape a particular ecosystem, potentially wreaking havoc in others. Biological entities evolve, and evolution might change released modified bacteria in unpredictable ways. 

These are concerns synthetic biologists are tackling head on. In the last five years, we've made tremendous progress in engineering 'kill-switches' that could allow us to precisely control engineered bacteria in natural ecosystems. We've also developed bacteria which have been so extensively engineered that they cannot interact with other life-forms very well, or cannot reproduce, hence limiting the potential spread of synthetic DNA. Yet, biologists are ever-aware of the conceit involved in predicting biological futures and for the moment these bacteria will remain in petri dishes in labs around the world. 

ii. the red planet

The largest concern with biological geo-engineering is the fact that we might cause dangerously irreversible changes to the only habitable planet we know of. This is why, a group of scientists including NASA researchers are exploring biological options in terraforming Mars. The hopes are many, ranging from making Mars human-habitable (paving the way for eventual human colonisation), to using the red planet as a test-bed for ecosystem engineering whose lessons might then rescue the Earth from climate catastrophe. Less futuristic scenarios include the possibility of employing bacteria to harvest resources directly from Mars, or recycling consumable resources like waste-water, making manned Mars-missions a cheaper and easier endeavour. Most experts agree though that terraforming, the process of completely changing Mars' atmosphere is a process that could take centuries. A nearer-term option is something called para-terraforming. Paraterraforming envisions making smaller, enclosed spaces on Mars habitable for humans. Previous experiments in paraterraforming conducted on Earth have met with little success; however the prospect of engineering organisms specifically for terraforming makes this a more feasible proposition. 

Some however, question the ethics of using Mars as a lab-bench. One argument is that any human attempt at terraforming Mars might destroy or alter any remnant, hitherto undiscovered life on the planet. Another, that seeding Mars with terrestrial life may change a potential independent development of biological life on the planet in the distant future. These are minority opinions however. A view that, in my opinion, holds more merit suggests that the creation of Mars as a back-up planet might hinder attempts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change and pollution here on Earth.

iii. a last resort

There are two forms of climate change mitigation on the table at the moment, passive and active. Passive mitigation uses methods that are easier to swallow for most, reducing global consumption, stricter pollution controls, and switching to low-carbon sources of energy. The problem however lies in the fact that passive mitigation alone might not be enough to limit global warming to the 2°C threshold set by the Paris Agreement. Indeed, experts are highly sceptical that limiting warming to even 4°C is feasible given current trends. And the difference between a 2°C and 4°C limit is that the latter will result in massive droughts, flooding on an unprecedented scale and food shortages.

In this scenario, several climate experts have called for more drastic measures including non-biological geoengineering technologies cloud-seeding. In fact some estimates claim that cloud-seeding on a large enough scale might even bring global temperatures down to below pre-industrial levels. In this scenario then, would we even need a biological solution that might carry more risk? 

A possible benefit of biological remediation is of course that we might be able to rescue ecosystems that are on the brink of collapse, something that physical solutions like cloud seeding might never be able to achieve. Biological solutions can address biological problems in a manner that purely physical measures might struggle to. Another aspect of synthetic biology, the de-extinction of extinct species, is something that might supplement the reduction in global warming with the restoration of lost biospheres. 

On the policy front geoengineering is a topic that's often scoffed at or neglected in favour of discussions such as emissions reduction. The reasons for this are legitimate, though given the current political climate with the US backing out of climate accords, the dream of a 2°C reduction in global warming seems to be growing ever more distant. Science agencies across the world are waking up to this fact, and just a couple of months ago China announced the world's largest geoengineering research program. As of now, geoengineering remains a last resort, and biological measures even more so.

This isn't stopping scientists from experimenting with it though, and nor should it. 

Written by: Devang Mehta
Devang is currently a PhD student in Plant Biotechnology and Science & Policy at ETH Zurich. He also serves on the EUSynBioS Steering Committee as Policy Officer. Follow him on twitter at @_devangm or check out his blog at

Photos: All photos used under CC0 license. 

Synthetic biology and de-extinction through the eyes of a science journalist

I met Torill Kornfeldt at the iGEM Jamboree last year in Boston, where she kindly tolerated my less-than-fluent Swedish language skills, and put up with my questions on science journalism and synthetic biology. As her viewpoints are very interesting, I asked her and she agreed to share them with the community; the result is the interview below.

Konstantinos Vavitsas: You have studied biology. What made you transition to journalism, and in retrospect, how do you feel about your choice?

Torill Kornfeldt: I really loved to study biology, and even started a Phd. But I was doing freelance work as a science journalist on the side, and it began to take up more and more of my time and my focus. It took a while, but I eventually realized that I'm a lot happier as a journalist than as a scientist. One aspect is that I now have the opportunity to be a generalist instead of a specialist when it comes to knowledge, I can write about planet formation one week, genetics the next, and behavioral ecology the third. I really love to have that variation and high pace in my work. Another aspect is that I can alternate between longer and shorter deadlines, depending on my focus for the moment. Longer projects, like writing a book, take a year or two, but at the same time I can record radio shows for a few weeks or write short texts that only take a day. 

I sometimes miss the freedom in the academic world, that is something that is hard to find in other areas. As a freelance journalist I am partly creating that freedom for myself, but not quite. On the other hand I really don't miss the hierarchical system within the academic world.

All in all, I have never regretted leaving academia for journalism.

KV: How interested are people in Sweden and in Scandinavia in general about science and synthetic biology? Are there any specific challenges with reporting science in Swedish?

TK: Swedes in general love new technology and we tend to be early adopters of basically everything. :) Most people in Sweden don't really know what synthetic biology is, but so far synthetic biology has induced curiosity, rather than fear and skepticism, in Sweden. That said, swedes are also enormously environmentally-minded, so anything that is perceived as an environmental threat is almost automatically rejected.

Reporting about science in Sweden is always interesting: on one hand people are in general very interested in science and the general level of education is high, which makes my job easer. On the other hand there are very few outlets for science news, since the populations is to small to support too many publications. The public service radio and TV are the main channels from which people in Sweden get their science news.

KV:   You recently published your book (in Swedish) “The return of the Mammoth: the extinct species' second chance”. Can you tell us a few words about it and how you decide to write about de-extinction? What is your personal opinion on this subject?

TK: The book, which is actually going to be published in English as well, is about the handfull of ongoing projects where researchers are trying to recreate extinct species - such as the mammoth, the passenger pigeon and the auroch. But this book also covers research aboutgenetic technologies to help save endangered species or species that have gone extinct very recently.

I choose to write about deextinction partly because it really resonated with my inner 11-year old. Who doesn't feel a bit of a thrill if you think about seeing alive mammoth again? Having that enthusiasm and curiosity to draw from was really important when I needed energy to get me through the tough parts of the work.

The other reason is that deextinction beautifully summaries a lot of the important factors in the emerging genetic boom. Lots of different types of science is involved, so I could explain many different techniques. But it also include a lot of ethical and philosophical concerns, as well as the general question of what kind of world we want to live in.

Personally, I'm still really undecided when it comes to deextinction. The ethical concerns when it comes to individual animals are very real, but on the other hand I do feel that we have an obligation to try to make the world a better place - even if that involves lab-grown rhinos. But the fundamental benefit in this research lies in the basic science, in the discoveries about genetics, embryology, and ecology that this will lead to.

KV: What is, according to you, the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity of synthetic biology?

TK: When a field develops as rapidly as synthetic biology, and has as many successes and discoveries, it inevitably leads to a slight hubris within the field. It's not so much individual researchers but a general culture of invincibility that slightly permeates conferences, meetings, papers and so on. This is good in many ways, because it creates courageous scientists who try out new things even if they might be impossible. It is even necessary for synthetic biology to develop the ground-breaking tools that I think humanity need. 

But there is also a clear downside to this hubris, where researchers don't stop and think about the implications of there research or might dismiss concerns from the public or from researchers in other fields. Something that might lead to enormous problems.

So the biggest challenge is finding a way to harness that hubris and avoiding at least some of the drawbacks, in my opinion. 

KV: Do you think synthetic biology is inclusive enough? If not, how can this be improved?

TK:There are many ways to think about inclusivity; gender, socioeconomic background, ethnic background, and so on. All of these are extremely important, and since synthetic biology is a relatively young science, there is a real opportunity to try and make it more inclusive than other fields. One way might be to really emphasize that all people - independent of their background - create better results in diverse groups. Diversity is a strength that will make the science produced better, and having different perspectives will create more interesting research questions. In a group where everybody is the same, nobody will have any new ideas.

Torill Kornfeldt is a science journalist, author and lecturer with a focus on biology and biotechnology. Read more on her on her website or follow her on Twitter.