Gene synthesis is the production of a physical DNA strand given the sequence information (i.e. the sequence of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s in a computer). The cost of gene synthesis has been falling, which has been a very good thing for synthetic biology.
The genetic sequences of deadly pathogens, such as smallpox and Ebola virus, are publically available: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/L22579.1> and <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_002549.1>. It is now technically feasible to synthesize these genes. Given the physical DNA or RNA, it is then not difficult to recreate the pathogens themselves.
To counter this, gene synthesis companies screen sequence orders for dangerous genes <http://gspp.berkeley.edu/iths/Maurer_IASB_Screening.pdf>. Some companies compare the order against the select agents list <http://www.selectagents.gov/Select%20Agents%20and%20Toxins%20List.html> and automatically flag any hits. Others employ humans to compare the sequence against GenBank (or a similar large database of sequences) to determine whether the sequence matches anything pathogenic.
There are several problems with this arrangement. Firstly, the screening is voluntary. There is no government-enforced process. Secondly, with the technology advancing so rapidly, independent groups may soon be able to economically synthesize their own genes. This would circumvent any screening performed by large suppliers. Thirdly, screening against a list of known sequences might not be sufficient; it would not capture to-be-discovered pathogens. Fourthly, having humans screen orders would lengthen the turnaround time and/or increase the cost of synthesis. There is a conflict of the companies’ interests between biosecurity and business competition. Fifthly, if in the future people submit sequences derived from their own genes, there might be a privacy issue: there have been cases where anonymous participants were identified in human genome databases <http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-privacy-1.12238>.
Thus, the efficacy of current screening practices is questionable, and there may be privacy issues with screening.
Hey Kelvin,
My first comment will be grammatical additions to the review. In the second and third paragraphs, you include the citations within the text. I would consider adding a superscript and putting all the citations at the end. This helps with the flow of the text, and makes it easier for the reader to view.
In terms of clarity, the discussion section was confused with exactly what the process of gene synthesis was. That might have been from you misunderstanding what the class would know about the topic. However, the analysis you wrote only explains what gene synthesis is in one sentence at the beginning of the analysis. If you want to engage the reader more, explain in a few more sentences what exactly gene synthesis is and what the technology is capable of before delving into the ethical dilemmas of the issue.
Another way to strengthen the analysis would be to discuss more in detail the issues you bring up in the next to last paragraph. For instance, you say, “… screening against a list of known sequences might not be sufficient.” This could be improved by adding a sentence or two explaining the potential harm of this. You add a small statement, but I think further expanding on the issues will help with both with explaining the topic and also shaping your perspective on the issue.
Lastly, you never really state your perspective on the issue or where you think this technology should be taken. At the end, after discussing the issues, you should state exactly what you think is ethically right. State your perspective based on everything you said before and why you think that is the case.
I would love to look over your analysis again after you fix these couple of things. Hopefully, what I said was clear, but if not, always post questions for me to clarify.
Good luck!
Nathan Jalazo