Synthetic Biology 1’s and 0’s
I’m fascinated by the ways that people discuss biological engineering, the language that they use to talk about what cells, proteins, and DNA do. Often, these words come from computer engineering: DNA is the code, proteins are machines, cells can interact to form networks, etc.
A recent article in the UK version of Wired points out that even though we like to talk about biology as machines, the reality is that while “the 1s and 0s of software live in shiny metals shielded by colourful plastics; biological data lurks in dampness, in pipettes and test tubes.” How does the grossness associated with bacteria affect how synthetic biology and biotechnology are received?
I love the idea that if the domestication of biotechnology is going to dominate our life for the next 50 years, as Freeman Dyson predicts, the aesthetics and perceptions surrounding biology are going to change dramatically. Will germophobes be the new luddites? Will bacteria be beautiful? How about lab supplies?
