By Deborah Smith
SCIENTISTS have created artificial life for the first time. They have developed a tiny new bacterium, or "synthetic cell", that is controlled by man-made DNA.
The technological advance is the culmination of 15 years of research costing more than $47 million by a team led by Craig Venter, a controversial American biologist and entrepreneur.
The breakthrough promises the creation of new, useful synthetic bacteria that can clean up pollution or produce energy, but there are also concerns man-made microbes could escape the lab or be used as weapons by terrorists.
Mark Bedau, editor of the scientific journal Artificial Life, said the research represented "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology".
Scientist Craig Venter and his synthetic cell creation.
Dr Venter said his team's research was scientifically and philosophically important. "It certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works."
His team created the genome of a bacterium, Mycoplasma mycoides, from scratch, using bits of DNA bought from biotech companies. They then transferred it into another type of bacterium and the synthetic genome "booted up" the recipient cells, so they began to replicate and produce M. mycoides proteins.
"We clearly transformed one cell into another," said Dr Venter, who heads the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland. "This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind]."
The research is published in the journal Science.
One of the team's main aims is to design algae that can capture carbon dioxide and produce oil for fuel. The approach could also have benefits in speeding up vaccine production, cleaning water and producing chemicals and food ingredients, he said.
But Georgia Miller, of Friends of the Earth, said there was a risk that synthetic organisms could harm the environment or be used for malicious purposes.
Regulations to control them were lacking, she said. "Although we've known this day would come for many years, governments have done very little."
She was also critical that the researchers have filed patent applications on some of their techniques, with the risk that "new organisms could be owned by their developers".
Michael Selgelid, deputy director of the National Centre for Biosecurity at the Australian National University, said the research was a "historical achievement" with "enormous potential", although its promise had yet to be realised.
He said many new technologies, including synthetic biology, could be used for good or evil, and the development of dangerous synthetic microbes as weapons was a major concern.
Better regulations and safeguards had been under discussion for a decade, including reviewing the risk of "dual purpose" use of research when a project was first proposed and strengthening international conventions on bioterrorism.
Dr Venter said he had ensured an extensive bioethical review of the implications of the research had been done first.
Deborah Smith is the Herald's Science Editor