Novel artificial genetic systems with twelve bases instead of four. Bacteria that can be programmed to take photographs or form visible patterns. Cells that can count the number of times they divide. A live polio virus “created from scratch using mail-order segments of DNA and a viral genome map that is freely available on the Internet.” These are some of the remarkable, and occasionally disturbing, fruits of “synthetic biology,” the attempt to construct life starting at the genetic level....[S]ynthetic biologists aim to make biology a true engineering discipline. In the same way that electrical engineers rely on standard capacitors and resistors, or computer programmers rely on modular blocks of code, synthetic biologists wish to create an array of modular biological parts that can be readily synthesized and mixed together in different combinations. MIT has a “Registry of Standard Biological Parts [which] supports this goal by recording and indexing biological parts that are currently being built and offering synthesis and assembly services to construct new parts, devices, and systems.” ...The idea behind a registry of parts is that these parts can, and should, be recombined in different ways to produce many different types of devices and systems. Although the Registry currently contains physical DNA, its developers believe that, as DNA synthesis technology becomes increasingly inexpensive, the Registry will be composed largely of information and specifications which can be executed in synthesizers just as semiconductor chip designs are executed by fabrication firms.
Synthetic biology has already produced important results, including more accurate AIDS tests and the possibility of unlimited supplies of previously scarce drugs for malaria. Proponents hope to use synthetic organisms to produce not only medically relevant chemicals but also a large variety of industrial materials, including biofuels such as hydrogen and ethanol. At the same time, synthetic biology has engendered numerous policy concerns. From its inception, commentators have raised issues ranging from bioethical and environmental worries to fears of bioterrorism....
There is, however, one area that has been largely unexplored until this point – the relationship of synthetic biology to intellectual property law. Two key issues deserve further attention. First,...[t]here is reason to fear that tendencies in the way that the law has handled software on the one hand and biotechnology on the other could come together in a “perfect storm” that will impede the potential of the technology. Second,...[i]t points out a tension between different methods of creating “openness”. On the one hand, we have intellectual property law’s insistence that certain types of material remain in the public domain, outside the world of property. On the other, we have the attempt by individuals to use intellectual property rights to create a “commons,” just as developers of free and open source software use the leverage of software copyrights to impose requirements of openness on future programmers....
PS: Despite the Creative Commons license on this preprint, Microsoft Explorer 7.0 (with the default security settings) balked at a certificate problem, didn't offer me a workaround, couldn't open it for me. I read it in Firefox with no trouble.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/14/2006 11:53:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
