Dalton R. George, “Bioengineered Organisms in the Environment: How To Contain Them?” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, May 31, 2024), https://doi.org/10.25613/7GKG-TE16.
The modern era of genetic engineering has enabled us to directly edit genes in cells and organisms such as bacteria. In the past, genetically engineered organisms were largely contained in physical structures within laboratories, factories, or greenhouses. Most of these organisms were designed to survive only under the specific conditions rendered in these closed spaces and to perish should they happen to escape into an open environment.
However, in the last decade, engineered microbes, plants, and animals are increasingly designed to survive and persist in open environments to accomplish a defined task. Several companies are already marketing such genetically engineered organisms to the public:
Many scientists, as well as members of the public, are concerned that when these genetically altered entities are no longer physically contained in a lab, they could spread beyond their intended application space to bring about unintended consequences. As such, new containment strategies are needed for applications in open environments to ensure the efficacious and safe use of these products.
In response to these concerns, scientists have proposed a suite of strategies, referred to as “genetic biocontainment,” as a technological fix to the problem. Genetic biocontainment involves specifically engineering an organism to limit its spread to unintended environments. Almost always, this intervention creates a biological barrier internal to the organism, limiting in some way its ability to exist outside of a specific environment — like the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” that could not synthesize lysine in their bodies and so required external sources for survival. Laboratory experiments with genetic biocontainment mechanisms — sometimes referred to as “kill switches” — have proved to be effective, leading some scientists to claim that this is the best solution for containment concerns.
However, translating this technological success in the lab to the real world has proved challenging. In a recent article, titled “A Bumpy Road Ahead for Genetic Biocontainment,” I collaborated with colleagues from Arizona State University, University of New Mexico, and Rice University to describe some of the major barriers to implementation of these strategies. A few key issues include:
Unfortunately, there is no “one size fits all” approach to containing engineered organisms in natural environments. A genetic containment mechanism, on its own, does not ensure safe, feasible, and socially acceptable environmental applications of genetically engineered organisms. Instead, scientists and developers would benefit from considering broader environmental, social, economic, and regulatory dimensions to understand the full scope of containment options — physical, genetic, and natural — and impacts on future engineered organisms.
Biotechnology offers the promise of discovering new ways to address societal challenges in environmental conservation, sustainability, and agriculture by using engineered organisms. However, we do not want harmful, unintended consequences to result from a cavalier attitude toward editing nature. It is important to embrace thoughtful approaches to setting up multifaceted containment policies and strategies for genetically engineered organisms. Scientists, regulators, industry, and civil society stakeholders need to work together to build collective capacity for thinking through these issues and informing future decision making. Although some discussions have already taken place, more are needed, as applications of engineered organisms continue to push into new commercial sectors, environments, and local communities.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
