Today’s plenary lunch session was the most interesting of the sessions so far. Dr. Drew Endy, Assistant Professor at the Bioengeneering department at Stanford and the President of the BioBricks Foundation (a registry for DNA code), spoke about synthetic biology. His vision for the technology (which is well underway, by the way) is that there will be a large registry, sort of like iTunes, where one can download DNA sequences. Using an assembler, they can produce the DNA, and essentially write a computer program (organic machine) using DNA. Apparently, they have already mapped the DNA for all boolean algebra.

His concept for a biological engineering program at Stanford is to meet the expectations of high school students wanting to study synthetic biology. According to Endy, they want to “design and build living organisms that behave as expected” and “write DNA programs that will do [their] bidding” without having to “bother with all that basic research”.

The most common reference he made was to advances in computing. I paraphrase: Starting with rocks. People want to build with rocks, but they are challenging because of their unusual shapes. Then people broke them up into more regular shapes (blocks) and build buildings with them. Then they grind up the rocks into silicone, and build computer chips with them. Then with those chips, they design computer hardware and software. (the DNA is the computer software)

What is wrong with this? He raised 8 points, and I have one of my own.

• Should teenagers practice genetic engineering?
• Should there be secret BL-4 labs?
• Is garage biotechnology inevitable?
• Will biohackers be good or bad?
• Should BioBrick parts be patented or freely shared?
• Should genetic engineers sign their work?
• Should genetic engineers be licensed?
• What is wrong with the DNA god gave us?

My primary concern is with the difference between computer software and DNA as software. Computer software operates entirely in the relm of a constructed system, IE interconnected computer hardware. DNA, on the other hand, operates in the same system as we do. It is as if we were living in the interconnected network of computer hardware. What happens when there is catestrophic failure (as in a computer virus)? Life, like computer programs, replicate themselves. Life, like some new computer programs, evolves. Life, unlike computer programs, shares the same earth as we do. To me that is a cause for concern.