402 9.3  Synthetic Biology, Biomimicry, and Bionanotechnology

So, by implication, it’s just a matter of rearranging them to make something else. Feynman

also left the world in 1988 with a quote written on his university blackboard in Caltech,

stating

What I cannot create, I do not understand.

It is tempting to suggest, which others have done, that Feynman had synthetic engineering

approaches in mind when he wrote this, though the sentence he wrote following this,

which was

Know how to solve every problem that has been solved

suggests rather that his own thoughts were toward “creating” mathematical solutions on

pencil and paper, as opposed to creating novel, nonnatural materials. However, Feynman did

give a lecture in 1959 titled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” which suggests at least

that he was very much aware of a new era of studying matter at the very small length scale in

biological systems:

A biological system can be exceedingly small. Many of the cells are very tiny, but they are very

active; they manufacture various substances; they walk around; they wiggle; and they do all

kinds of marvelous things—​all on a very small scale.

—​Feynman (1959)

Feynman is perhaps not the grand inventor of synthetic biology, bioengineering, and nano­

technology, indeed the latter phrase was first coined later by the Japanese researcher Taniguchi

(1974). However, he was the first physical scientist to clearly emphasize the machine-​like

nature of the way that biology operates, which is key to synthetic biology approaches.

Synthetic biology can be broadly defined as the study and engineering of synthetic devices

for “useful purposes,” which have been inspired by natural biological machines and processes.

It often employs many similar biophysical tools and techniques of modern systems biology,

but the key difference is that synthetic biology is really an engineering science, that is, it is

about making something.

There is also a subtle and fascinating philosophical argument though that suggests that

in many ways synthetic biology approaches can advance our knowledge of the life sciences

in a more pragmatic and transparent way than more conventional hypothesis-​driven

investigations. In essence, the theory goes, humans are great at identifying putative patterns

in data, and these patterns can then be packaged into a model, which is ultimately an approxi­

mation to explain these data using sound physical science principles. However, the model

may be wrong, and scientists can spend much of their professional careers in trying to get it

right. Whereas engineering approaches, as in synthetic biology, set a challenge for something

to be made, as opposed to testing a model as such.

An example is the challenge of how to send someone to the moon, and back again.

There are lots of technical problems encountered on the way, but once the ultimate

challenge set has been successfully confronted, then whatever science went into tackling

the challenge must contain key elements of the correct model. In other words, engin­

eering challenges can often cut to the chase and result in a far more robust understanding

of the underlying science compared to methods that explore different hypotheses within

component models.

KEY POINT 9.2

Synthetic biology is an engineering science focused on generating useful, artificial

things inspired by natural biology. But in setting a challenge for a “device” to be made, it

can also result in a far greater level of core scientific understanding compared to purely

hypothesis-​led research.