The plants were offered as rewards for making donations tothe glowing flower project on Kickstarter, the site used mainly to fund arts projects through crowdsourcing.
It’s common for Kickstarter campaigns to offer contributors an item in return –
for example, a contributor to an independent film might receive a DVD of the
film when it is completed. The glowing plants Kickstarter page, which offered
seeds for glowing mustard plants or a rose, quickly reached and surpassed its
goal of $65,000 to draw $484,013 from 8,433 backers. After objections from
Kickstarter users, particularly over the dangers of releasing genetically
modified organisms into the environment, Kickstarter allowed the project to
proceed but created a rule stating that in the future, campaigns on the
Kickstarter website cannot distribute genetically engineered life forms.
The science behind creating glowing plants is not all that new.
Not only is it possible to move genes from one species to another,
biotechnology has made it cheaper and easier than ever. The genes for luminescence
from a jellyfish or fireflies are inserted into the plant’s DNA in a place
where it won’t interfere with the other genes’ activities. They use software
designed specifically to design synthetic life forms, which helps make the massive
amount of genetic information easier to work with. (In an interesting if self-serving bit of
metaphor, a spokesman for Genome Compiler software says that “We are democratizing creation…. Cells
are nothing more than a computer, running a program and the program is the
genetic code. The code is DNA. The software are the chromosomes. The hardware
is the wetware.”) They
will then obtain the genetic material that they have “programmed” by using a
Cambrian Genomics gene printer, a product that has made the process far cheaper.
Then, they plan to use a “gene gun,” sometimes called a biolistic particle
delivery system, which will shoot tiny metal particles covered in glow-causing
DNA through the cell walls of the plant cells. In some of the plant cells, the
new DNA becomes part of a chromosome. Then, cells that have been effectively
modified according to plan are cultivated.
The Kickstarter plans to use this process to make glow-in-the dark Arabidopsis, or mustard seed, which is
the plant most commonly used in scientific experiments (in the way that rats
are the most commonly used animal); in other words, there is a huge amount of
information about Arabidopsis genes.
The project also hopes to engineer a glow-in-the-dark rose.
The original Kickstarter page asking for contributions
includes the following statement:
Once
we have proven the designs work we will then insert the same gene sequence into
the plant using a gene gun. This is more complicated, as there's a risk the
gene sequence gets scrambled, but the result will be unregulated by the USDA
and thus suitable for release.
Funds raised
will also be used to support our work to develop an open policy framework for
DIY Bio work involving recombinant DNA. This framework will provide guidelines
to help others who are inspired by this project navigate the regulatory and
social challenges inherent in community based synthetic biology. The framework
will include recommendations for what kinds of projects are safe for DIY Bio
enthusiasts and recommendations for the processes which should be put in place
(such as getting experts to review the plans).
First of all, one has to wonder at the logic of the phrase: “unregulated
by the USDA and thus suitable for release.” At the very least, it conflates “suitable”
with “not illegal.” Even more interesting, however, is the commitment to ‘open
source’ bioengineering, with its seeming attempts to develop a culture of
responsibility. While one might cynically note that this is probably good PR
for the project, there certainly is a need for more discussion about how Do It
Yourself culture in the biotech age might need some more explicit conversations
on community values.
Controversy over glowing genetically engineered organisms,
however, is not new. In the 1980s, scientists made a glow in the dark tobacco
plant by inserting genes from fireflies. Artist Eduardo Kac created a stir in
2000 when he genetically engineered a glowing rabbit, angering animal rights groups and starting
heated conversations about the nature of art and the ethics
of bioengineering. (Genetically engineered zebrafish are now available as pets
as well.) But for Kac and his collaborators, the processes were much more cumbersome
than they are now.
New technologies and software tools for genetic engineering
are making it easier and less exorbitantly expensive to create new variations
on organisms, especially for scientists without connections to – or oversight
from – traditional institutions (academia, industry, government, etc.).
Crowdsourcing, and its underlying anti-institutional philosophy, is another
push in the same direction. Due to both technology and broader decentralizing
cultural forces, individuals and groups are participating in knowledge work
that was once reserved for tightly controlled spaces, blurring the public and
private spheres in ways that people have found liberatory, frightening, or both
(see for example, the controversy about using 3-D printers to make guns).
So the glowing plants conversation is not just about
Kickstarter. It’s about the fact that old mechanisms of information control are
rapidly shifting. Even if it weren’t for
this one project, what about the many other synthetic biology projects that
could release organisms into the environment? What will happen when creating a
genetically engineered plant or animal becomes something the ordinary person can
do with a home computer (or a phone app)?
And that’s not even getting into what will happen when
common household equipment will allow people to alter their own DNA. (Posthumantheory
might have much to say about that!)
The fierce responses to the glowing plant debate reveal our
tensions – about science, but also about creativity, control, individualism,
the environment, and how we imagine the ethical and practical limits of human knowledge.
That’s why I found the online discussions surrounding these glowing plants so
fascinating – it’s not a debate over the ethics of genetic engineering per se,
but a debate over how genetic engineering is marketed, sold, controlled or
released, and by whom. It speaks to our
hopes and anxieties about the future, and to who we trust – and who we don’t.
A round-up of interesting responses to the debate:
The Daily Beast
covers the backlash against the project, and also quotes scientists who argue that
the glowing plants are unlikely to become invasive since there is no
evolutionary advantage in glowing. The article also explains that glowing
plants require a ton of energy and that often the glow is barely noticeable.
The San Jose Mercury News
explains that these plants do not fall under Department of Agriculture
regulations because they are made with a gene gun, and not more traditional
means.
According to BetaBeat, “Futurists on Reddit are up in arms
about a recent update to Kickstarter’s project guidelines
that states that creators can’t offer “genetically modified organisms” to
backers as a reward for donating to the project.”
GizMag
goes a little bit into the science behind the process and also the future plans
for the project.
PopSci asks
“Is Kickstarter Hostile to Science?” and also mentions some science-specific
crowdsourcing sites.
A Time Magazine writer argues that the Kickstarter
controversy is actually about the competing values of humanists vs. scientists,
and the rivalry over who will control Kickstarter and crowdsourcing.
Wired UK frames the project in terms of the potential of human imagination, and includes
many quotes from those involved in the project.
Other coverage:
No comments:
Post a Comment