Synthetic Virus Nearing Reality Source: BBC News Online February 21, 2001
Scientists will have the technology to create a wholly
artificial virus within the next five years, a major conference in the
US has been told.
The synthetic microbe could be used to help genetically
engineer novel plants and animals, and treat human disease.
So far, there is no reason to believe that this
technology is going to make things any worse. But if the technology is abused, it could lead to
bioweapons against which society might have little defence.
The timetable for the creation of an artificial virus
was laid out by Professor Clyde Hutchinson, of the University of North
Carolina and The Institute of Genomic Research.
"This isn't trivial to do and no-one has yet reported
doing it," he told the annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
But he said: "If researchers put their minds to it, they
could do it within a few years."
'Bad stuff'
Delegates to the annual meeting stressed that the issues
surrounding a synthetic virus should not be over-dramatised.
Dr Jonathan Moreno, of the University of Virginia, and
an author on bioweapons, said rogue states or groups already had
access to plenty of destructive technologies.
Some fear the new technology could be used to create
bioweapons
"A synthetic virus is something to be concerned about,
but the question is whether we could develop anything that is worse
than what is already available in nature, that some have attempted to
exploit for the purposes of bioweaponry - such as anthrax," he said.
"There's enough bad stuff out there now. So far, there
is no reason to believe that this technology is going to make things
any worse."
Professor Hutchinson and his fellow researchers are
engaged in what is known as the Minimal Genome Project, which is
investigating the smallest number of genes required to sustain life.
From scratch
The project may eventually provide the knowledge to
create an artificial lifeform - most probably a small bacterium.
Such a lifeform would be built from scratch using
fundamental chemicals and could be engineered to manufacture useful
drug components or to break down chemicals at the site of a toxic
spill.
But Prof Hutchinson told the AAAS synthetic lifeforms
were still science fiction because of the difficulties in synthesising
long segments of nucleic acid - the "life molecule" DNA and its
chemical cousin RNA.
A synthetic microbe could be used to treat disease
He said: "Just having the genome isn't the same as
having a cell.
"To get the genes to do something, there have to be
factors there to translate the genes into messenger RNA and into
proteins, etc, and that at present can only be done in a living cell."
Most researchers would not regard a virus as being
"alive", as it depends on the machinery of a living, host cell to
replicate.
But its very much simpler design - nucleic acids perhaps
just 10 kilobases in length and a few associated proteins - makes it
an easier target for synthesis.
Although viruses are popularly seen as merely agents of
disease, they also have a productive role in biotechnology.
Modified versions of viruses, in which the
disease-causing elements have been "switched off", can be used to
carry useful genes into an organism.
Design flexibility
Viruses could be important tools in future gene therapy,
carrying genes into the cells of sick people to correct or replace the
ones that have gone wrong.
A synthetic virus might make this task easier by
providing greater flexibility of design.
The fear would be that the same technology could be used
to synthesise a super-pathogen, or "biobomb", to terrorise society.
But Dr David Magnus, of the University of Pennsylvania
Center for Bioethics, said any minded individual would probably opt
for a simpler approach.
We're toolmakers - the first axe could have been used
for agricultural purposes or it could have been used for killing
Professor Daniel McGee
He said: "You don't have to synthesise a genome from
scratch to be able to make a version of smallpox.
"You could get a close relative and use standard genetic
engineering. You could probably do that right now."
Professor Daniel McGee, of Baylor University, said the
threat always had to be judged against the benefits, with regulation
steering us on the right course.
"We're toolmakers. The first axe could have been used
for agricultural purposes and good purposes, or it could have been
used for killing.
"The moral dilemma is essentially the same.
"The fact that there is more power now - it extends
further than just one person with one axe - is significant, but it
doesn't change the qualitative dimension of the moral dilemma."
Prof Hutchinson added: "Am I worried about a synthesised
virus? No, you only worry about it if someone does it out of malicious
motives."
by Jonathan Amos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/san_francisco/
newsid_1181000/1181710.stm
- Dr Jonathan Moreno