Freedom and responsibility in synthetic genomics: The synthetic yeast project

Genetics

Volumn 200, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 1021-1028

  Sliva, Anna ^a,b   Yang, Huanming ^c   Boeke, Jef D ^b   Mathews, Debra J H ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c BGI SHENZHEN   (China)

Author keywords

Ethics; Governance; Oversight; Synthetic biology; Yeast

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; EUKARYOTIC CELL; GENOMICS; NONHUMAN; PATENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY; YEAST; FREEDOM; GENETICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; SAFETY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL CONTROL;

EUKARYOTA; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

FREEDOM; GENOMICS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SAFETY; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY;

EID: 84939429985     PISSN: 00166731     EISSN: 19432631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.176370     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Annaluru, N., H. Muller, L. A. Mitchell, S. Ramalingam, G. Stracquadanio et al., 2014 Total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic chromosome. Science 344: 55-58.
2. Bar-Yam, S., J. Byers-Corbin, R. Casagrande, F. Eichler, A. Lin et al. 2012 The Regulation of Synthetic Biology: A Guide to United States and European Union Regulations, Rules and Guidelines. SynBERC and iGEM Version 9.1. NSF Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, Emeryville, CA.
3. Boldt, J., 2010 Synthetic biology: Origin, scope, and ethics. J. Center for Humans and Nature 3: 20-25.
4. Carlson, R., 2011 Staying sober about science. Hastings Center Rep. 41: 22-25.
5. Carter, S. R., M. Rodemeyer, M. S. Garfinkel, and R. M. Friedman, 2014 Synthetic Biology and the U.S. Biotechnology Regulatory System: Challenges and Options. J. Craig Venter Institute,Rockville, MD.
6. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBC), 2014 Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada.
7. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2010 Screening Framework Guidance for Providers of Synthetic Double-Stranded DNA. Washington, DC.
8. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2012 The Maxine Singer Papers. Risk, regulation, and scientific citizenship: the controversy over recombinant DNA research. Profiles in Science. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
9. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2013 NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC.
10. Drinkwater, K., T. Kuiken, S. Lightfoot, J. McNamara, and K. Oye, 2014 Creating a Research Agenda for the Ecological Implications of Synthetic Biology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/creating-a-researchagenda-for-the-ecological-implications-of-synthetic-biology/. Accessed: February 2, 2015.
11. Dymond, J. S., S. M. Richardson, C. E. Coombes, T. Babatz, H. Muller et al., 2011 Synthetic chromosome arms function in yeast and generate phenotypic diversity by design. Nature 477: 471-476.
12. Garfinkel, M. S., D. Endy, G. L. Epstein, and R. M. Friedman, 2007 Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance. J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD.
13. Grushkin, D., T. Kuiken, and P. Millet, 2013 Seven Myths and Realities about Do-It-Yourself Biology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
14. Herfst, S., E. J. Schrauwen, M. Linster, S. Chutinimitkul, E. de Wit et al., 2012 Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science 336: 1534-1541.
15. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), 2010 Guidelines for the Appropriate Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology, Lausanne, Switzerland.
16. Jefferson, C., F. Lentzos and C. Marris, 2014 Synthetic biology and biosecurity: how scared should we be? Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, King’s College, London.
17. Kaebnick, G., T. H. Murray, and E. Parens, 2014 Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology. The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY.
18. Kronberger, N., 2012 Synthetic biology: Taking a look at a field in the making. Public Understand. Sci. 21: 130-133.
19. Kuhlau, F., A. T. Höglund, S. Eriksson, and K. Evers, 2013 The ethics of disseminating dual-use knowledge. Res. Ethics 9: 6-19.
20. Lajoie, M. J., A. J. Rovner, D. B. Goodman, H. R. Aerni, A. D. Haimovich et al., 2013 Genomically recoded organisms expand biological functions. Science 342: 357-360.
21. Maurer, S. M., 2012 Taking self-governance seriously: synthetic biology’s last, best chance to improve security. Goldman School of Public Policy Working Paper No. GSPP12-003. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
22. Maurer, S. M., K. V. Lucas, and S. Terrell, 2006 From Understanding to Action: Community-Based Options for Improving Safety and Security in Synthetic Biology. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
23. Mortimer, R. K., 2000 Evolution and variation of the yeast (Saccharomyces) genome. Genome Res. 10: 403-409.
24. National Research Council (NRC), 2009 Responsible Research with Biological Select Agents and Toxins. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
25. Oye, K. A., K. Esvelt, E. Appleton, F. Catteruccia, G. Church et al., 2014 Regulating gene drives. Science 345: 626-628.
26. Palù, G., 2014 Regulating dual-use research in europe. Science 343: 368-369.
27. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2010 New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
28. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environmental Programme, Montreal, Canada.
29. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environmental Programme, Montreal, Canada.
30. Talbot, B., 1980 Introduction to recombinant DNA research, development and evolution of the NIH guidelines, and proposed legislation. Univ. Toledo Law Rev. 12: 804-814.
31. Tu, M., 2012 Between publishing and perishing? H5N1 research unleashes unprecedented dual-use research controversy. Building a Safer World: Articles; available at: http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/between-publishing-and-perishing-h5n1-researchunleashes-unprecedented-dual-use-research-controversy/. Accessed: February 2, 2015.
32. United Nations Environment Programme, 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada.
33. Valero, E., D. Schuller, B. Cambon, M. Casal, and S. Dequin, 2005 Dissemination and survival of commercial wine yeast in the vineyard: A large‐scale, three‐years study. FEMS Yeast Res. 5: 959-969.
34. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2014a Maps Inventory: Updated Map Tracks Global Growth of Synthetic Biology. Washington, DC.
35. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2014b Library: Synthetic Biology Applications Inventory. Washington, DC.
36. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2014c Synthetic Biology Scorecard. Washington, DC.