Public opinion key to harnessing synthetic biology

Posted on behalf of Barbara Casassus.

Synthetic biology, heralded by some as the next biotechnology revolution, could be seriously undermined if the public is not informed about its potential benefits early on, according to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report today.

The field, which emerged more than 15 years ago, allows researchers to engineer biological systems or ‘parts’ in a complex way. It pushes the boundaries of biology, for example, even challenging the rule that the DNA alphabet consists of four letters.

Fears are that public opposition on a scale comparable to that now facing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe and Japan could be a major hurdle, says biologist Jim Philp, the lead author of Emerging Policy Issues in Synthetic Biology and a policy analyst in the OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.

A public debate should be launched immediately if synthetic biology — known as synbio — is to be accepted, he urges. “You can’t just say you have developed a new technology and tell people to go away and use the products it has helped create,” says Philp.

Governments should promote discussion between scientists, policy-makers and the public — harnessing social media and, to spark young people’s interest, launching competitions modelled on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) undergraduate synbio scheme, the report says.

It also highlights the United Kingdom as a country that has taken public opinion seriously so far (although the United States leads in public research investment in synbio). The UK Technology Strategy Board published a road map in July 2012 as a blueprint for synbio development up until 2030, covering research and innovation, and also developing technology for commercial use.

The report also discusses the scope of synbio for fuel, medicine, food and the environment, and potential stumbling blocks including issues such as cost, intellectual property and regulations. It calls for governments to introduce financial incentives, and for the OECD to foster international cooperation to prevent duplication of research and to help overcome regulatory and other pitfalls.

Another OECD report to be published at the end of the year will focus on synbio and the bioeconomy. It will look at prospects for synbio to help replace the oil barrel in some 50 or 60 years’ time by using microorganisms to make fuel, chemicals and plastics.

Uproar as anti-GM activists acquitted in France

Posted on behalf of Barbara Casassus.

French scientists are up in arms over the recent court acquittal of 54 activists who destroyed 70 experimental genetically modified (GM) grapevines in eastern France in August 2010.

Twelve leading research agencies and university organizations released a joint statement on Monday expressing their “serious concern” over the consequences of the Colmar Appeal Court’s decision to throw out the case, and urging clarification of the relevant laws and regulations.

The statement noted that “the protection of experiments in controlled conditions is no longer assured”, and this was the first court ruling since the law increased the ceiling on sanctions for destroying non-commercial experimental crops. More than 200 public meetings were held on the trials, which were conducted by French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) to test for protection against court-noué, the grapevine fanleaf virus.

The court described the greenhouse field trials as illegal because INRA had not proved that the vines would cause no health or environmental damage. The daily newspaper Le Figaro quotes the defendants’ lawyer Jérôme Bouquet-Elaïm as saying “our position is not to condemn research” but to stop scientists from not respecting the right procedures.

The defendants were initially given a two-month suspended prison sentence in 2011, and were ordered to pay €57,000 (US$78,000) in damages to INRA, which they have since done.

Higher education and research secretary of state Geneviève Fioraso told the National Assembly, or lower house of parliament, today that she endorsed the research organizations’ joint statement. “It is important in a spirit of scientific progress and risk control that circumscribed research can be carried out in all safety,” she said during government question time. Failing that, “we risk discouraging research”, she said.

The case is not over, however, as the public prosecutor has taken the case to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest criminal and civil appeal court.

Acid-bath stem-cell scientist apologizes and appeals

Posted on behalf of David Cyranoski

Haruko Obokata, the Japanese scientist at the centre of a controversy over studies purporting to turn mature cells to stem cells simply by bathing them in acid or subjecting them to mechanical stress, today apologized for her errors in the work.

Kicking off a press conference in Osaka amid a storm of snapping cameras and flanked by two lawyers, Obokata blamed her immaturity and her lack of awareness of research protocols for the errors that were found in her two high-profile papers on the studies, published in Nature in January (Note: Nature’s news and comment teams are editorially independent of its research editorial team). These included the use of a duplicated image.

She took full responsibility for the errors, and apologized to her co-authors for the mess she got them into. Obokata, in her first public statement in more than two months, also apologized to her institute, the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, for the embarrassing press the whole ordeal had brought. In addition, she sought forgiveness from the RIKEN committee whose report earlier this month found her guilty of scientific misconduct. She had attacked the report at the time.

Obokata held the press conference for two reasons: to apologize for the errors and to make the case that her research was still valid and that the inaccuracies in the papers were not deliberate. Yesterday, she submitted a formal appeal to RIKEN that their committee retract its misconduct findings. She insisted that the “stimulus-triggered activation pluripotency” or STAP phenomenon, as it has been dubbed, exists. RIKEN has 50 days to respond to her appeal.

In the STAP work, lead author Obokata, along with Japanese and US colleagues, described stunning experiments in which she reprogrammed mature mouse cells to an embryonic state merely by stressing them. But the two papers soon fell under suspicion and last month a RIKEN-appointed investigative committee found in a preliminary report that they contained numerous errors. In a further report on 1 April, the committee announced that two of the errors constituted scientific misconduct. On the same day, Obokata responded aggressively, with a written statement expressing “shock and anger” at conclusions she said had been reached without giving her a chance to explain herself. Today, her tone was very different: pleading for forgiveness and showering apologies. But she maintained that her findings hold true.

Obokata insisted that the two problems which led to the misconduct findings — the duplicated image and the swapping of a diagram of an electrophoresis gel — were only errors. She said she had not been given enough time to explain her side to the committee.

After her five plus minutes of introductory remarks, her lawyer gave a 20-minute presentation to make the case that neither problem added up to misconduct. Defining fraud as fabrication, he countered that in both cases Obokata had the original data that should have been used but merely added the wrong data by mistake. For the more damning finding — an image of teratomas that had appeared in her doctoral dissertation and then again in the recent papers — the committee had found that she had changed a caption, which made it look intentional. The lawyer however traced the image back to a slide, part of a presentation that Obokata had continually updated and reused, until its origin became obscured. (Later, in one of her many apologies, she said, “If I had gone back to carefully check the original data, there wouldn’t have been this problem.”)

After the lawyer’s talk, Obokata responded to journalists’ questions for more than 2 hours. In response to suspicions based on the fact that she only handed two laboratory notebooks over to the committee looking into her research, she said she had four or five more that the committee hadn’t requested. She denied that she ever agreed to retract the papers. She also corrected reports that she had asked to retract her PhD dissertation, saying that she merely sought advice on how to proceed. Her dissertation is under investigation at Waseda University, where she studied for her doctorate.

Obokata also denied the possibility that the STAP cells had resulted from contamination from embryonic stem cells, saying that she had not allowed embryonic cells in the same laboratory and that she had carried out tests which precluded that possibility.

She said that she had created STAP cells more than 200 times, adding that she knows someone who has independently achieved it but refused to give the name (citing privacy). She believes that a RIKEN group trying to demonstrate STAP cells will help her. She has not, she said, been asked to participate in those efforts. She added that she would consider doing a public replication experiment but that it was not up to her whether she could.

Two hours into the questioning, her lawyer cut off journalists, citing concern for Obokata’s frail emotional state, and said she had to return to the hospital where she has been staying. She bowed, apologized, then bowed again and left. The press cameras contined to snap away.

 

Ancient hominin Little Foot older than thought

by Barbara Casassus

Little Foot, the world’s most complete hominin fossil, dates back much further than the widely thought 2.2 million years, and should help scientists narrow down the identity of the first human ancestor, according to new research published today in the Journal of Human Evolution*. The findings were announced at simultaneous press conferences in Paris and Johannesburg.

The first analysis of sediments in the Silberberg Grotto at the Sterkfontein site in South Africa where Little Foot was discovered, shows the fossil Australopithecus is likely to be 3 million years old or more, according to Laurent Bruxelles, a geomorphologist at the archeology agency Inrap (Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Péventives) in Paris. This would make Little Foot, officially named StW 573, a contemporary of the more scant Lucy, a fossil Australopithecus afarensis discovered in Ethiopia in 1974.

Ron Clarke, a retired professor of South Africa’s Witwatersrand University, discovered four foot bones of Little Foot in a box of animal fossils from the site in 1994, 16 years before the skeleton was fully unearthed. In contrast to other Australopithecines found in the area, which was classified by UNESCO as the “Cradle of Humankind” in 1999, Little Foot fell 20 metres to his or her death instead of being devoured by a predator, says Bruxelles, the paper’s lead author.

Attempts to date Little Foot’s 95%-plus complete skeleton have been dogged by controversy. Clarke first thought it was about 3 million years old, and belonged to the prometheus rather than the better known africanus species of the pre-human Australopithecus group. And several subsequent studies produced dating estimates ranging from 1.5 to 4 million years ago.

“Geologically, Little Foot could even be 4 million years old, but that will be up to the paleontologists to say,” Bruxelles says. The significance of the latest findings is that one of the two lineages “might have been a close ancestor of the first humans, while the other probably left no descendants”, he adds.

* Bruxelles, L., et al., Stratigraphic analysis of the Sterkfontein StW 573 Australopithecus skeleton and
implications for its age, Journal of Human Evolution (2014), https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.02.014

Seafaring robot braves sharks to scoop world record

“He weathered gale force storms, fended off sharks, spent more than 365 days at sea, skirted around the Great Barrier Reef, and finally battled and surfed the East Australian Current to reach his final destination in Hervey Bay near Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia.”

It sounds impressive by any devoted ocean researcher’s standards, but this scientific adventurer is a wave-powered robot dubbed Papa Mau. And these are the trials that the bot has had to endure on its way to scooping the world record for the longest distance travelled by an autonomous vehicle, says the Liquid Robotics, the US company that developed him.

The bot has set a new world record — with no past robotic voyagers coming close, says a spokesperson for the company. The next closest record appears to be that of an underwater glider RU27, also named Scarlet Knight, which clocked up almost 7,400 kilometres traversing the Atlantic Ocean in 2009.

Papa Mau, one of the company’s ‘Wave Gliders’ (pictured, above), navigated 9,000 nautical miles (16,668 kilometres) from San Francisco, California, to Australia. Named after Mau Piailug, a master navigator from Micronesia, the robot is one of four launched into the high seas by Liquid Robotics. Benjamin, a second Pacific-crossing bot, is due to reach Australia early next year; the two others are destined for Japan.

But being able to go the distance is not Papa Mau’s prime aim. The surfboard-like bot — split in two parts —  is a meticulous ocean scientist, according to its makers.

Continue reading