Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Biology and Biological Diversity Conservation

Potential Positives and Negatives Impacts

Dr. Marina Rosales Benites de Franco

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The conservation of biodiversity is one of three primary objectives of the CBD. The conservation of biological diversity occurs at all levels: genes, species and ecosystems. The second objective is sustainable use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biodiversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. The third objective is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Synthetic Biology (SB)

The synthetic biology is the application of science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the design and engineer (manufacture and or modification) biologically based parts or genetic materials, novel devices and systems in living organism to alter living or non living materials (European Commission 2014). It is also described as a “converging technology”. SB builds upon multiple fields, engineering, molecular biology, information technology, nanobiotechnology and system biology also named as systeomics. This technology is particular since it aims at the acceleration and facilitation of the process, for useful purposes.

The areas of research that are considered SB include DNA-based circuits, synthetic metabolic pathway engineering, synthetic genomics, protocell construction , and xenobiology . SB brings together and builds upon multiple fields, including engineering, molecular biology, information technology, nanobiotechnology, and systems biology (also known as systeomics)

SB frequently uses E. coli, baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and microalgae, to produce alternatives to naturally-occurring or petroleum-based molecules. There are examples as SB production of of artemisinic acid, an alternative to the naturally occurring anti-malarial drug artemisinin, which is derived from Artemisia plants; the production of fuels such as biodiesel and isobutanol using synthetic biology techniques; the production of pharmaceutical drugs for diabetes  and flavourings/fragrances as  vanillin;  protocell that fix carbon dioxide into inorganic carbonate (Armstrong et al. 2012); produce fuels such as biodiesel and isobutanol by engineering metabolic pathways in microbes and microalgae^[1];  Metabolix’s proprietary microbes use sugar to create biopolymers on a commercial scale (BIO 2013); Shikimic acid is being produced with synthetic biology tools , it is an anti-influenza drug Tamiflu, made from shikimic acid traditionally sourced from the star anise plant; DSM Sinochem producing the synthetic antibiotic cephalexin that they claim to be faster, cheaper, and less energy-intensive (Erickson et al. 2011);  a medicine for type II diabetes is produced by Merck using an enzyme modified by synthetic biology techniques by Codexis (BIO 2013); Agrivida, Inc produce  biomass feedstock with dormant biodegrading enzymes that are activated after harvest for biofuels; the production of squalene, an emollient used in high-end cosmetics and personal care products that has historically been sourced from the livers of deep sea sharks; convert agricultural waste materials (soybean hulls) into surfactants (use in cleaning applications); DuPont produces bio-based 1,3 propanediol by fermenting corn sugar with a “patented micro-organism” that converts glucose to propanediol.

Potential effects of SB

SB technology could aim to respond to challenges associated with bioenergy, environment, conservation wildlife, agriculture, health and chemical production, as bioremediation and pollution biosensors, produce artificial chemicals or drug that had been extracted from natural sources reducing the pressure on wild species by overharvesting or hunting and less environmentally harmful manufacturing processes; helps to identify and treat wildlife diseases; RNA-guided gene drives could potentially prevent the spread of disease, and control damaging invasive species; generates biofuels to decreased dependence on non-renewable energy sources; produces agricultural crops that are tolerant to abiotic stress and pests; reduces use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and it has many other potential industrial uses.

However, SB could also have some negative impacts on biodiversity conservation synthetic microbes that could have adverse effects due to their potential for survival, persistence and transfer of genetic material to other micro-organisms. Potential undesired consequences could result from the use of “gene drive” systems to spread traits aimed at the suppression or extirpation of populations of disease vectors; introduction of new diseases; possible toxic and other negative effects on non-target organisms such as soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects, other animals and plants; transfer of genetic material to wild populations via vertical gene transfer and introgression; some methods of producing biodegradable plastics may have more environmental impacts such as the release of carcinogens and eutrophication than fossil-based polymers^[2]; displace products that are key to in-situ conservation projects and could have others negative effects on ecosystems and human health.  The restoring genetic diversity through reintroducing extinct alleles, or even “de-extinction” of species do not have their habitats to be viable and has negative effects on co-evolution and diseases; so it is more important to develop in situ conservation; genes from organisms developed through synthetic biology techniques could also transfer to unrelated species through horizontal or vertical gene transfer which may lead to a loss of genetic diversity and an unintended spread of phenotypic traits.

The global synthetic biology market was estimated to be $1.1 billion in 2010, and projected to be $10.8 billion by 2016. This market includes products for industry, health, agriculture crops and others economic activities.

Biosafety concerns

Unintentional or intentional release of organisms resulting from synthetic biology techniques to ecosystems outside of a contained laboratory or production facility could negatively impact on biodiversity. The organisms could become invasive and microbes have a particularly high potential for rapid evolutionary change. There is a big problem SB organism cannot be retrieved once released. Some experts said both physical and biological containment strategies are being explored as means to reduce the risks and potential negative impacts of organisms resulting from synthetic biology techniques.

It is necessary develop international agreement to regulate the effects of transboundary movement, transit, handling organism, parts or derivatives resulting from SB on biodiversity, ecosystems and genetic components of natural living organism. The living organisms and the living modified organisms resulting from current synthetic biology techniques are under regulation of Articles 8(g) and 19 of Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol. However, there are gaps where components and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques do not fall within the scope of treaty regimes, as components and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques that are not living modified organisms.

There is also question on synthetic biology also with regard to access and benefit-sharing, the material being accessed for use in synthetic biology could be considered “genetic resources” or “genetic material” and whether the components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology constitute “derivatives” as defined in the Nagoya Protocol. Who is the origin country of genetic material or its derivatives and what mechanisms and instruments should implement to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources? Should the intellectual property rights, resulting from synthetic biology products, benefit the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its ecosystems?

References

Armstrong, Rachel, Markus Schmidt & Mark Bedau. 2012. Other Developments in Synthetic Biology. In Synthetic Biology: Industrial and Environmental Applications, edited by Markus Schmidt. Weinheim (Germany): Wiley-Blackwell, 145-156.

Biotechnology Industry Organization. 2013. Current Uses of Synthetic Biology for Renewable Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biofuels. Available at: http://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/Synthetic-Biology-and-Everyday-Products-2012.pdf, accessed on 10 March 2015.

CBD. 2014. Possible gaps and overlaps with the applicable provisions of the Convention, its Protocols and other relevant agreements related to components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques. 60 p. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-12/information/cop-12-inf-12-en.pdf, accessed on 12 March 2015.

 

CBD. 2014. UNEP/CBD/COP/12/INF/11. Potential positive and negative impacts of components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and associated social, economic and cultural considerations. 65 p. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-12/information/cop-12-inf-11-en.pdf, , accessed on 12 March 2015.

Erickson, Brent, Rina Singh, and Paul Winters. 2011. Synthetic Biology: Regulating Industry Uses of New Biotechnologies. Science 333, 1254-1256.

European Commission. 2014. Preliminary Opinion on Synthetic Biology I: Definition. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_044.pdf, accessed on 12 March 2015.

Köning , Harald, Daniel Frank, Reinhard Heil & Chistopher Coenen. 2013. Synthehtic Genomics and Synthehtic Biology applications between Hopes and Concerns. Current Genomics 14: 11-24.

---

[1] DuPont Tate and Lyle BioProducts have been producing Bio-PDO™ (1,3-propanediol) since 2006, using corn as feedstock and proprietary microorganisms. The same company, in partnership with Genomatica, produced more than 2,000 metric tons of 1,4-butanediol (BDO) in 2012 using engineered E. coli.

[2] König et al. (2013)

Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Global Economy

Global economy and biodiversity conservation

Dr. Marina Rosales Benites de Franco

The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 found that all major pressures on biodiversity were increasing, as loss, degradation and fragmentation of natural habitats; overexploitation of biological resources; pollution, in particular the buildup of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment; the impacts of invasive alien species on ecosystems and the services they provide to people; and, climate change and acidification of the oceans, associated with the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

These drivers of biodiversity loss have been leading and pushing ecosystems towards critical thresholds or tipping points. As a result, a broad range of services on which people depend for their livelihoods and well-being, are threatened. All societies and economies are affected. The Governments and society should to coordinate actions to addressing the direct and underlying causes or drivers of biodiversity loss. This coordination is related with applying Aichi Biodiversity Targets of Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020.

The first reviews towards the attainment of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets progress have been assessed for Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (GBO 4). The strategic goals are address underlying causes (goal A), reduce direct pressures (goal B), improve status (goal C), enhance benefits to all (goal D), and enhance implementation (goal E).

The GBO 4 gives the progress data to the Aichi Targets elements, on the base of five point scale the assessment,  it could consider 2% advances on track to exceed target; 8% advances on track to achieve target (if we continue on our current trajectory we expect to achieve the target by 2020);  62% advances on progress towards target but at an insufficient rate (to unless we increase our efforts the target will not be met by its deadline); 19% advances  no significant overall progress (we are neither moving towards the target nor moving away from it); and, 9% on moving away from target ( is on things are getting worse rather than better).

The global economy and its policies are related with these targets that no have significant overall progress and moving away from target. The targets are the following:

Goal A:

Target 3. Incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity, eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts.

Target 4. … and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

Goal B:

Target 5. The loss of all habitats is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero.

Target 6. Fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems.

Target 6. The impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.

Target 8. Pollution from excess nutrients has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

Target 9. Introduction and establishment of IAS prevented.

Target 10. Multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

Goal C:

Target 12. Extinction of known threatened species has been prevented.

Target 13. Genetic diversity of wild relatives is maintained.

Goal D:

Target 14. Ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded …

Target 15. Ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks have been enhanced through conservation and restoration.

The global economy as an international exchange of goods and services needs to evolve as an effective and efficient market. The global economy develops on ecosystems of nature and on social space, they are inseparable. The world economy is judged in monetary terms, but there are certain goods and ecosystems services that do not have economic values in the market.  This leads to maintain harmful subsidies to biodiversity and priories economic growth, without respect safe ecological limits. The consequences are loss habitats, threatened species, overexploitation and pollution.

The capital as that amount of wealth which is used in making profits and which enters into the accounts has two faces of the same coin, natural capital (ecosystems structure and its functions) and fixed and circulating capital. However, natural capital is not part of economic reserves (not only protected areas). It is important to think what is the vital task the Central Banks? The Central Bank has a big task, is maintain price stability, e.g. it aims to maintain inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term in the Eurozone. In the same sense, it is vital to economy maintain the ecosystems services stability; it aims to maintain them in its resilience capacity.

The circular flow of income, model of the economy  in which exchanges are represented as flows of money, goods and services, and others  between economic agents, do not consider explicitly the nature and its ecosystems. Main importance since the economic agents develop on the framework of ecosystems structured. It is relevant since the circular flow analysis is the basis of national accounts and hence of macroeconomics. As a result of this, the governments do not prioritize to build Ecosystem resilience to contribute to enhance carbon stock.

A market economy is the space and time in which decisions regarding investment, production, and distribution are based on supply and demand, and prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system. However, the market has externalities since societies and governments regulate market to varying degrees. The negative externalities costs are paying the present and future generations. The overexploitation, as fishery economics activities, pollution, ecosystems endangered, as coral reefs, and climate change are some of the results of these externalities.

The production do not include the cost of pollution treatment or remediation neither ecosystems restoration nor investments in nature infrastructure to distribute better on supply and demand and the prices. This lead the market failures in which the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient, there is not Pareto efficient.

In the other hand, the market should develop in the framework of moral and ethics values. Adam Smith would have tried to show that the moral values invoked to regulate economic activity would have been more fully realized by cities that regulate market.

Hence, there is need to self-regulate the safe ecological limits and the planetary boundaries, a green tax on the activity or, require to be included in the costing of those engaged in the economic activity, the environment cost to conserve goods and ecosystem services.

In this regard, the GBO 4 show us there have been drivers that governments had not yet been progress, related with the lack of environmental policies application to permit the economic flows run well within safe ecological limits and the planetary boundaries.

Finally, economic growth should have to a main goal the sustainable development, under the change of old paradigms that lead to human development and well being, maintaining the opportunities for future generations. The Gross Development Product should include natural capita, will be more realistic and can give us the opportunity to adapt and mitigate climate change considering it as a major driver of biodiversity loss and ecosystems change in this century.