Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Experts Held a Secret Meeting to Consider Building a Human Genome From Scratch

The replicant Pris from Blade Runner. Could synthetic humans be right around the corner?
The replicant Pris from Blade Runner. Could synthetic humans be right around the corner?

Earlier this week, over a hundred scientists, lawyers, and entrepreneurs gathered to discuss the radical possibility of creating a synthetic human genome. Strangely, journalists were not invited, and attendees were told to keep a tight lip. Which, given the weighty subject matter, is obvious cause for concern.

Advertisement

The idea of creating a synthetic human genome is qualitatively different than gene editing. Instead of scientists patching a gene here and a gene there, they would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes. Synthetic genomics, unlike genetic modifications, in that it doesn’t use naturally occurring genes. Instead, it relies on the custom-designed base pair series. This opens to the door to a greater array of possibilities, as geneticists wouldn’t be bound by the two base pairs produced by nature.

Currently, scientists see synthetic genomics as a way to build novel microbes and animals, but the same principle applies to humans. It thus raises the prospect of custom-designed humans, or even quasi-humans, without any parents. It’s a massive bombshell of a topic—one requiring serious rumination and discussion. But for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, this futuristic endeavor appears to be getting off on the wrong foot.

Advertisement

As science writer Andrew Pollack reports in the New York Times, the prospect of synthetic human genomes was discussed at a secret meeting held at Harvard Medical School this past Tuesday. Pollack says that those in attendance were told “not to contact the media or to tweet about the meeting.”

According to George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard medical school and a key organizer of the proposed project, the whole thing is an unfortunate misunderstanding. Church says the meeting wasn’t really about synthetic human genomes, but rather it was about efforts to improve the ability to synthesize long strands of DNA, which geneticists could use to create all manner of animals, plants and microbes. Church was quoted in the NYT as saying: “They’re painting a picture which I don’t think represents the project. If that were the project, I’d be running away from it.”

This is all very interesting because, as Pollack points out, the original name of the project was “HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project.” What’s more, an invitation to the meeting clearly stated that the primary goal would be “to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of ten years.” Later, the organizers changed the name of the meeting to “HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells.” The reason for the change, they said, was that the original name was meant to be headline-grabbing. Which is a super strange thing to say given that the meeting was closed to the press.

As for why the meeting was held behind closed-doors, Church says it’s because his team has submitted a paper to a scientific journal, and they’re not supposed to discuss the idea publicly before publication. Again, a very strange excuse; why hold a meeting on such an important topic before the paper gets approved for publication? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to hold the meeting after? In fact, the press are often invited to read papers prior to publication under the embargo system. Journalists are already in the habit of keeping quiet as a matter of protocol and journalistic ethics.

Advertisement

As noted, Church hopes to build a complete human genome in a cell line within ten years, which is quite ambitious. The last effort in this regard was Craig Venter’s group, who synthesized a simple bacterial cell. But building an artificial human cell, well that’s considerably more complex. The ten-year timeline seems unrealistic, but at least it’ll afford us plenty of time to ruminate on this hugely important prospect.

Indeed, this topic is definitely far from resolved, and we’ll be watching this story as it unfolds. In the meantime, I highly encourage you to read Pollack’s entire article at the New York Times, and a provocative essay published in Cosmos Magazine about the ethics of synthesizing a human genome. Here’s a short clip:

In a world where human reproduction has already become a competitive marketplace, with eggs, sperm and embryos carrying a price, it is easy to make up far stranger uses of human genome synthesis capacities.

Would it be OK, for example, to sequence and then synthesise Einstein’s genome? If so how many Einstein genomes should be made and installed in cells, and who would get to make them?

Taking a step back, just because something becomes possible, how should we approach determining if it is ethical to pursue?

Given that human genome synthesis is a technology that can completely redefine the core of what now joins all of humanity together as a species, we argue that discussions of making such capacities real, like today’s Harvard conference, should not take place without open and advance consideration of whether it is morally right to proceed.

Advertisement

I have reached out to Dr. George Church for comment, along with an attendee of the meeting. We’ll update this post should their responses come in.

[New York Times, Cosmos Magazine]

Advertisement

George is a senior staff reporter at Gizmodo.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

deusasclepian
deusasclepian

So I’m confused by this. Synthesizing larger DNA strands would certainly be very scientifically helpful for all sorts of applications. Current syntheses can only accurately produce very short strands.

The stuff about using synthetic base pairs - other than the naturally occurring A-T(U) and G-C base pairs - seems a little far-fetched. People are working on it, but it runs contrary to how DNA works for all known life on Earth. All of our DNA and RNA replication mechanisms rely on the naturally occurring pair arrangements, as do ribosomes. It’s been theorized that we could eventually design genes that code for proteins having more than the typical 20 amino acids, and even that would be a massive undertaking. It would hard to build a bacteria that does it, let alone a human.

If you were going to build a human genome, you would need a template. By far the easiest thing to do would be to sequence someone’s genome, then try to recreate it by stitching small synthesized strands together. It would be like trying to type out Moby Dick by hand. Of course, if we could synthesize longer strands, it would be easier. So that’s my take on this: someone is trying to figure out how to synthesize longer DNA strands, with the ultimate goal of being able to piece together an entire genome. To drum up attention/funding, they gave their conference a misleading name, then got slapped down by their colleagues who get tired of seeing ridiculous pop-sci articles like this one.