search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Biomaterials


Asimov grappled with the dangers of creating machines similar to humans, forcing his readers to ask: should we be making synthetic life at all? When it comes to research around synthetic cells, the ‘should we be doing this?’ discussion is certainly part of the scientific discourse. That’s not least when research into both fundamentals of synthetic cells – and how they might ultimately be used beyond their usual function – is so dynamic. But since the furore surrounding Dolly the Sheep in the 1990s, there have been fears that experimenting with artificial life, and especially synthetic cells, could result in material ripe for bioterrorism. Ethically, meanwhile, some believe that cellular creation violates the sanctity of nature, commoditises life and ultimately amounts to playing God.


Dr Petra Schwille, director at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry and steering committee member at SynCellEU, gives short shrift to such discussion – especially in her area of non- applicative, fundamental research. When it comes to bottom-up biology – or creating a cell in a lab – she says “we’re not talking about human life or anything that is even close, in terms of being self-conscious”, instead describing her creations as a minimal living unit that would be much, much simpler than even the simplest bacterium. As Schwille adds, no such cell could compete with species that have already evolved on Earth. Ergo: the risks are simply not there.


Artificial work


Indeed, ethical quandaries don’t appear to be preventing research into understanding these cells – or how they might be used medically. Since Thomas Ming Swi Chang was credited with creating the first artificial cell, in 1957, the field has bubbled with innovation. From sustainable synthetic cell systems that feed off carbon dioxide; to how magnetic field stimulation might help synthetic cells deliver therapeutics in biological tissue; to how synthetic stem cells might battle conditions like arthritis – this is clearly a sector on the move. And in a turn that feels almost fictional, at least for the meantime, an article in Synthetic Biology details how synthetic cells may allow for so-called ‘designer’ therapeutics, tailored to the genetic make-up of an individual patient and which can target tumorous cells while ignoring healthy biological material. From within Schwille’s SynCellEU network, meanwhile, there are claims that synthetic cells could have a future in patient-tailored treatments for cancer, even as they could help target drugs more accurately and fight antimicrobial resistance.


Medical Device Developments / www.nsmedicaldevices.com


Elsewhere, scientists are exploring how synthetic cells might be controlled to respond to their environment, critical in the length of treatment delivery and specificity, and how their use might result in less wasteful manufacturing processes. It sounds, in short, like pioneering stuff – and the markets have certainly taken notice. The value of synthetic biology companies is expected to hit a cumulative capitalisation of over $37bn by 2027, almost quadrupling in size from $9.5bn in 2021.


When it comes to research on synthetic cells, the ‘should we be doing this?’ discussion is part of the discourse.


“With this discovery, we can think of engineering fabrics or tissues that can be sensitive to changes in their environment and behave in dynamic ways.”


Ronit Freeman, University of North Carolina


Sector insiders may have noticed recent headlines around research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by Ronit Freeman, which centres on claims that it has created synthetic cells that look and act like cells from the body. “With this discovery,” Freeman told Science Daily, “we can think of engineering fabrics or tissues that can be sensitive to changes in their environment and behave in dynamic ways,” adding that these materials could ultimately surpass pure biology. No less important, Freeman also argued that there is potential for these cells to operate in environments unsuitable to human life, and that they might even be able to modify themselves to serve multiple functions. In what is described as a first-ever breakthrough, this is done via a new programmable peptide-DNA technology that directs peptides – the building blocks of proteins – to form a so-called cytoskeleton. When added to water, meanwhile, this cell-structuring mechanism forms an effective synthetic cell.


473


The number of genes that scientists created in 2016, as a single-celled synthetic organism that was the


simplest living cell ever known.


National Institute of Standards and Technology, US


111


murat photographer/Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150