Life, but not as we know it
In May 2007, Dr J. Craig Venter addressed the General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences in Washington DC. He explained that on a quest to create a fully synthetic chromosome and organism, the Venter Institute had sequenced the microbial flora found in the vagina, oral cavity and human gut and created a synthetic version of PhiX 174, a virus that attacks bacteria. He advised that the first prokaryote created from first principles (i.e., from inorganic chemicals rather than by clipping together DNA extracted from other organisms), would be made in his laboratories by April 2008, and that he anticipated the first eukaryote would be manufactured by 2012. The Venter Institute has been able to make these extraordinary advances because of the vast computing power at its disposal (it has the largest non-government computing facility on the planet) and the enormous database of genomic material that it has sequenced – particularly from organisms that the Institute has collected from the Gulf of Mexico. When questioned about the ‘nature of life’ (I asked Dr Venter whether he considered being alive simply a measure of a sufficiently high level of complexity), he replied that he had no idea.
Considerations
- If the Venter Institute succeeds in making a new living organism, who will own it?
- If a higher eukaryote is produced, especially a sentient one, what rights should it have?
- Much of the funding for Venter’s research has come from public grants. In light of this, should the Venter Institute be able to patent DNA sequences?
- Is it morally right to try to make new organisms?
- Even if Dr Venter agreed to stop this research, is it feasible to anticipate that it would not be undertaken elsewhere?
- Should legislation be put in place to prevent patenting of a complete genome? (If preventive legislation were enacted, what would be the likely consequences?)
- Much of a chromosome is made up of ‘junk DNA’. It is called this because it has no known function. Some laboratories are currently patenting this junk DNA. Is this action moral?