The SynBio Revolution

'We can redesign you. We have the biotechnology. 

We have the capability to make the world's first synthetic human.

Better than before; better, stronger, faster.' - Oscar Goldman

 

 

I.

 

People who think the World Economic Forum's Great Reset initiative is simply about restructuring capitalism, have failed to realise the scope of their vision. For central to their ambitious plan to build back better is the radical development of synthetic biology; i.e., the redesigning of organisms for what are designated as more useful or productive ends. 

 

According to articles and reports on the WEF website, the future of life on earth - including human life - can no longer be left to evolutionary chance and the process of natural selection. Due to climate change, environmental degradation, and the pressures exerted by a rapidly growing population, it's time for scientists to step in and open the way towards a bioeconomy that incorporates (and coordinates) all sectors that rely upon the exploitation of biological resources (and that pretty much includes every major industrial sector).         

 

II. 

 

Synthetic biology - or SynBio as proponents and those working within the field like to call it - is a multidisciplinary area of research that aims to create new biological parts, devices, and systems, or to redesign systems already found in nature; a rapidly expanding world where genetic engineers meet computer engineers, and evolutionary biology meets big business [1]. There are now hundreds of companies around the world actively investing resources in synthetic biology and hoping to make (billions of dollars profit from) new and improved life forms.       

 

Now, whilst, I'm usually all for medical and scientific advances - who doesn't want clean energy and new drugs to fight disease? - I have to admit that increased state control over the bodily autonomy of the individual during the coronavirus pandemic has made me slightly anxious about where things are heading. 

 

Mandatory masks and vaccines are bad enough, but synthetic biology opens up a whole new can of worms and ethical issues and I'm not sure I want governments, organisations like the WEF, or giant tech companies, redesigning the natural world and reprogramming the human genome in the name of healthcare, enhancement, or sustainability. 

 

And it seems that there are an increasing number of people who feel the same and who are calling for a global moratorium (if not an outright ban) on the creation and commercial use of synthetic organisms until more robust regulations (or biosafety measures) are put in place. These people don't just include all the usual suspects - ecofascists, religious lunatics, conspiracy theorists, etc. - but even some leading scientists who are particularly concerned about the creation of so-called designer babies [2].   

Do Klaus Schwab and his billionaire friends promoting the Davos Agenda not understand that Brave New World was a dystopian science fiction novel and not a social blueprint for the 21st-century?  

 

Notes

 

[1] Despite the fact that the phrase biologie synthétique has been around for over a century (coined by the French biologist Stéphane Leduc in 1910), there is no fixed and agreed definition of synthetic biology. Essentially, it's an expanded (and far more elaborate) form of what used to be called biotechnology, with the ultimate goal of being able to design and engineer live biological systems that process information, manipulate chemicals, fabricate materials and structures, produce energy, provide food, and maintain and enhance human health. The first international conference for synthetic biology - SB1.0 - was held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2004. 

 

[2] See the article by Ian Sample - 'Scientists call for global moratorium on gene editing of embryos' - in The Guardian (13 March 2019): click here.  

 

 

Suggested further reading: 'The Bio Revolution: Innovations transforming economies, societies, and our lives', a McKinsey Global Institute report by Michael Chui, Matthias Evers, James Manyika, Alice Zheng, and Travers Nisbet, (May 13, 2020): click here to read online. 

The Handmaid's Tale

Cover to first hardback edition
(McCelland and Stewart, 1985)

I read The Handmaid's Tale full of high hopes and great expectations, aware of the critical status of this novel and sympathetic to any literary attempt to warn against authoritarian states - particularly ones underpinned by religious fundamentalism. But, I have to say, I found it disappointing.

Atwood rather cleverly combines some of the queer gothic elements of The Scarlet Letter with those twentieth century classics of dystopian fiction Brave New World and 1984. But whereas the latter, for example, challenges us to imagine a future in which a boot stamps on a human face forever, The Handmaid's Tale asks us to believe in a time when power nakedly manifests itself over an illicit game of Scrabble.

This might be making a point about the often banal and domestic character of evil, but, I must confess, I found it ludicrous. And, unfortunately, there were other things which served only to undermine the seriousness and the horror of the story. One should wince at the publicly displayed bodies of executed prisoners, but not at the clunkiness of dialogue exchanged between characters - even when spoken in the Latin that both Luke and the Commander for some peculiar reason had a penchant for.

I also think we could have done without the puns and without Nick, the chauffeur-lover, playing an almost Lawrentian role in the book. As for the 'Historical Notes' which Atwood attaches as an afterword, these too only serve to weaken the power of the novel which ends with an otherwise very memorable and moving last line: "And so I step, into the darkness within; or else the light."

Again, Atwood might be trying to make a (feminist) point about the manner in which an authentic female voice speaking its own experiences and memories is eventually transcribed, edited, and absorbed into an academic world (i.e. a system of power and privilege) still controlled by pricks such as Professor Pieixoto. But I agree entirely with Joyce Carol Oates who comments on the deflating effect of this heavily ironic coda:

"The appendix makes of the novel an astute, provocative social commentary, where its absence would have made the novel an abiding work of art ending with Offred's hopeful voice ..."     

Sometimes, as a writer, you just gotta know when to shut-up. And, ultimately, literature's not about scoring easy points or making lame jokes.  


Note: Joyce Carol Oates was writing in a piece entitled 'Margaret Atwood's Tale', in The New York Review of Books (Nov 2, 2006). Those interested in reading her article in full should click here.