Then, with an odd tone of self-satisfaction and wonderment, he told the world, "We're here today to announce the first synthetic cell. This is the first self-replicating species we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer." [1]
In other words, Venter had created a new life form.
He went on to summarize the way his team had composed a text file of genetic code, fabricated a corresponding chromosome (using four bottles of chemicals and machine that can print DNA), assembled the chromosome in yeast, transplanted the chromosome into bacteria, and "booted up" a new organism.
No doubt it was an impressive feat of technical biology. But in the bigger picture, the achievement suggested a new process of creative design. According to Venter's vision, "Over the next 20 years, synthetic genomics is going to be the standard for making anything." [2] And while some scientists dispute the claim that Venter created artificial life, many agree that new biological technologies are about to change the world.
Physicist Freeman Dyson states, "Within a few decades, as the continued exploration of genomes gives us better knowledge of the architecture of living creatures, we shall be able to design new species of microbes and plants according to our needs." To demonstrate how profound this is, Dyson outlines a scenario where these new species solve the problem of rural poverty. [3]
Meanwhile, Drew Endy, a former civil engineer who is now a leading bioengineer, has similar optimism about different applications: "Imagine you can construct organisms just like you can construct bridges. Imagine large-scale cities constructed from bio-matter." [4]
Stephen Davies, a venture capitalist, compares the buzz around biological technologies to the excitement around steam power during Victorian times: "Right now synthetic biology feels like it might be able to power everything. People are trying things. Kettles are exploding. Everyone's attempting magic right and left." [5]
And The Economist, not to be outdone, calls these new developments "Biology 2.0" and argues that science has changed forever. In the wake of Venter's announcement, the magazine concludes: "Future historians of science will divide biology into the pre- and post-genomic eras." [6]
This bio fever is contagious. But at the same time, now might be a good moment to take a deep breath and ask a few questions.
First, is there anything truly new about this recent biology?
I believe there is. This new science—called synthetic biology—has a different mission than last century's biology. The new mission is based on engineering, and it involves a shift from seeking knowledge to solving problems. This alters the output of biological research and promises tangible applications for design and many other fields.
Synthetic biology also has a different framework than previous biology. The new framework is based on the model of electrical engineering. It involves a system of standard biological parts called BioBricks that synthetic biologists can snap together to design predictable biological machines—similar to the transistors and capacitors that electrical engineers snap together to make predictable circuits. This enables multiple applications to be developed with the same biological parts. It also allows some people to design parts while other people design systems. Now non-specialists—such as architects, artists, material scientists, and computer scientists—may be able to design biological systems even if they do not understand the complex molecular behavior of the parts.
In addition, recent advances in biological technologies may lead to an exponential growth of synthetic biology. The cost of sequencing and synthesizing DNA is falling by half every 18 months, on a curve similar to Moore's Law for computer processing. Desktop machines already allow scientists to 3D-print biological parts right in the lab. And these advances are already leading to garage biology, which may trigger an explosion in innovation. Each major breakthrough may facilitate the next. We may be in a transformative phase similar to the moment in the 1970s when Apple Computer started in a garage in Silicon Valley.
Second, what exactly might these biological technologies mean for architecture?
Since synthetic biology involves designing organisms to perform tasks and produce physical materials, there are possibilities for architecture at many scales. The first architectural applications may involve the design and manufacture of new building materials within the laboratory and the factory. Examples may include bio-plastics that do not require petroleum, bacteria that fuse sand into bricks without baking, and wood that is extremely strong, flexible, and durable. These new synthetic building materials may offer higher performance, lower cost, lower carbon emissions, and less waste than their natural counterparts.
A next round of architectural applications may involve the design and installation of new building systems on site, outside of the laboratory. These systems may be more complex than materials produced in the lab. Examples may include biosensors that change color when they detect toxins or structural problems, microbes that find and heal cracks in concrete, termites that eat construction waste (as well as old cars and cell phones), and organisms that act as factories to produce building materials on site.
Eventual architectural applications may involve designing entirely new living buildings. They may offer some of the dynamic features of natural living systems—including growth, repair, and adaptation. One mind-blowing example involves programming a seed to grow into a building.
Yet the impact of these new biological technologies on architecture might involve process as much as product. Once architects add the tools of synthetic biology to their design palettes, entirely new designs and applications might emerge.
Third, what might it be like to design with biology?
For architects, some aspects of designing with biology may feel like an extension of familiar computation tools. Synthetic biologists already use a version of parametric modeling. They vary the arrangement and sequence of multiple genes to create new organisms. Changes in design parameters (gene inputs) cause changes in performance levels (organism outputs). For example, scientists are tuning 50 parameters of genes in microalgae to create organisms optimized for biofuel production. As knowledge of synthetic biology increases, and as this design space becomes encapsulated by software applications, architects may be able to manipulate parametric models to explore new biological systems.
It may also be possible to create mathematical models of more complex processes, such as cell differentiation and cell communication. Then architects may be able to abstract the behavior of biological systems and apply it to designs at a completely different scale. This may allow architects to design with the logic of nature rather than the form of nature.
But other aspects of designing with biology are likely to be unfamiliar. Cellular and molecular behavior is exceedingly complex. Despite recent advances and discoveries, in the near future anyone designing with biology may have to do so with only partial understanding and partial mastery of the forces and systems involved. Design with biology may require design with uncertainty.
And in this sense, design with biology may feel like the opposite of design with BIM (Building Information Modeling). Design with BIM involves complete control of all of the features, relationships, datasets, and tolerances of a project. It overcomes complexity with human logic and precision. Every feature of the model is authored by architects, engineers, or contractors. But design with biology may involve designing on top of existing machines authored by nature, rather than designing machines from scratch. It may require managing a few known forces that will inevitably interact with many unknown forces.
Yet for now, even these unknowns are unknown.
When it comes to innovation and the future, our current fevers and our more sober predictions may have little influence. As we move forward with idealism, we may also have to wait patiently for more evidence and more test results.
Last April, a month before his press conference, J. Craig Venter was awakened by a text message at six in the morning. The message was from Daniel Gibson, the young scientist leading Venter's research team. The message was brief. And the message was deceptively conclusive: "It worked."
[1] J. Craig Venter Institute Press Conference, "First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell", www.jcvi.org (May 20, 2010).
[2] Peter Aldhous, "Interview: DNA's messengers", New Scientist (July 11, 2007).
[3] Freeman Dyson, "Our Biotech Future", New York Review of Books (July 19, 2007).
[4] Rebecca Cathcart, "Designer Genes", Good Magazine (March 20, 2008).
[5] Jon Mooallem, "Do-It-Yourself Genetic Engineering", New York Times Magazine (February 14, 2010).
[6] Geoffrey Carr, "Biology 2.0", The Economist (June 17, 2010).
David Benjamin is principal of architecture firm The Living and Director of the Living Architecture Lab at Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. Recent projects include prototypes of living building envelopes, new software tools for design with synthetic biology, and novel composite building materials designed through the spatial distribution of plant cells, in collaboration with Fernán Federici and the Jim Haseloff Lab at Cambridge University.