Subscribe: E-mail | RSS
Topic: Biotechnology
Transforming the material world
23 February 2009
  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • Text size

Biotechnology is the selection or alteration of living organisms for human use. Its oldest forms are agriculture and animal husbandry: modifying the natural world to feed and clothe ourselves. Our ancestors also quickly figured out how to harness yeast to ferment alcohol and leaven bread. More recently, the discovery of penicillin, in 1928, ushered in a new era: the large-scale cultivation of microorganisms to produce antibiotics. But the modern biotechnology revolution really began when scientists learned how to transfer genes from one organism to another—such as adding the gene for growth hormone to bacteria. Suddenly, it became possible to produce large quantities of pure human hormones, enzymes, antibodies, and other proteins. Many are now used as medicines.

What will the future hold for this ancient technology made new? I believe that in this field, the past is prologue. Biotechnology will be used, on an increasingly large scale, to satisfy our fundamental needs: food, clothing, shelter, fuel, health, and a variety of material objects.

Basic needs. The principal application of biotechnology, I believe, will be for food, clothing, and shelter—the most essential human needs. Current agricultural methods require too much land, water, fertilizers, and pesticides to sustain the population of the 21st century, with its ten billion additional inhabitants. Bioengineering will dramatically improve the yield and quality of crops and their resistance to drought, salt, heat, and pests, as well as eliminate the need for environmentally harmful fertilizers. Meanwhile, the nutritional value of foods will dramatically improve, and the land area needed to cultivate food fibers and wood will shrink. Natural ecosystems will have room to expand, and erosion from tillage will end. The protein value and diversity of plant foods will increase, allowing the substitution of plant for animal protein and conserving precious land, water, and energy resources. Agriculture, the oldest of our biotechnologies, will remain its single greatest use in the future.

Fuel. Biofuels powered our past. We used wood and charcoal to cook our food and warm our homes; the consumption of plants and animals fueled human and animal labor. For much of our past, no net carbon was released to the atmosphere, but in modern times the use of fossil fuels is causing a dramatic rise in atmospheric carbon levels. That’s because the carbon dioxide in these fuels was removed from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago and safely buried underground, where until recently it remained. Now levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide already exceed those of the last fifty million years of geologic history. Although we cannot predict the full consequences, they are quite likely to be dire.

Biotechnology offers a way of returning to carbon-neutral energy. We will literally be able to grow our liquid fuels. They won’t be like today’s inefficient corn-based ethanol. Instead, they will probably come from saltwater aquatic microorganisms—bacteria, algae, and phytoplankton—altered to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into diesel fuel, gasoline, or other useful hydrocarbons. I call this field constructive biology. Thanks to advances in deciphering the entire genetic codes of species, along with the ability to modify those codes, such organisms can serve as the source of carbon for both fuel and oil-and-coal-based polymers and other chemical materials. Our energy future will be green and safe.

Nanotechnology. The science and biology of very tiny things, a field called nanotechnology, will enable humans to create far smaller and more efficient materials. All earthly matter consists of atoms linked together into molecules. Virtually all of the materials that human beings now make comprise billions of atoms and molecules lumped together. In contrast, living systems can build minuscule functional parts, some with structures only a few atoms (or even one atom) thick. Moreover, these nanostructures assemble themselves into precise three-dimensional forms requiring no outside guiding force or hand.

Living organisms are proof that nanostructures work. We can follow their lead. Indeed, the 21st century will bring a fundamental transformation of our ability to manipulate the nanoworld of atoms and molecules to our purposes. These new skills will far transcend the chemistry of the past. New generations of complex nanostructures will assemble themselves and aggregate with other nanostructures to create complex forms, which will then aggregate into large macrostructures with new and useful properties.

Exhibit: A growing trend: Genetically modified crops

It is too early to predict when this will happen, but I believe that the principles of biology, aided by biotechnology, will ultimately transform our entire material world. The benefits can be substantial. Much as waves of innovation have reduced the size of our industrial and consumer products, so too will this nanorevolution reduce the mass and complexity of the materials we use in daily life and in many of our manufacturing processes. Nanomaterials with precisely specified properties may replace most metals and ceramics in the future, allowing us to tread more lightly on our fragile planet.

Health. Biotechnology has already brought the ability to make virtually unlimited amounts of human hormones, enzymes, and other proteins for use as medicines. But this century will see its deployment far beyond current uses, such as treating diabetics with insulin or giving clotting factors to hemophiliacs. I foresee an era of regenerative medicine, in which a number of technologies will restore normal healthy function to body parts damaged by disease, injured by trauma, or worn out by time.

One of those technologies will be gene therapy. Genes that produce normal products will be used to replace faulty inherited genes. Genes that falter over time will be restored to normal function. We also will turn genes on and off to treat cancer, as well as auto-immune and other degenerative diseases. So far, gene therapy has been more challenging than originally hoped, but today’s setbacks will not halt the advent of this powerful new technology.

An ultimate goal of regenerative medicine is to rebuild healthy tissues and organs. I believe this will be commonplace by the end of this century. Right now, we can isolate and grow many of the different cell types in our bodies—including muscle, nerve, skin, bone, and cartilage. Some of these cells can already be fashioned into new working tissues and organs, such as bladders, urethras, blood vessels, and heart valves. Eventually, we will be able to regrow almost any organ—including the heart, bone, skin, cartilage, the liver, lungs, kidneys, and muscle. We cannot now predict whether we will be able to regrow the brain, but we can strive and hope.

Our ability to practice regenerative medicine will get a major boost from the technology of stem cells, which can give rise to every type of cell and body part. Think about what happens when a human egg is fertilized: an adult’s genetic clock is reset to zero, and adult cells give rise to a new embryo—and a new child. Stem cells too remain ever young and can reproduce an entire individual.

Stem cells have another advantage over adult cells—they can be produced in very large quantities. Unlike adult cells, which can reproduce only a limited number of times before aging, stem cells may be virtually immortal. I believe that they will be integrated seamlessly into the practice of regenerative medicine, yielding a renewable source of healthy human organs suitable for replacing damaged or diseased ones in any person. One profound possible consequence: slowing or even stopping the aging process, halting the march of biological time.

Biotechnology has affected and will continue to affect every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat to the materials we use to the energy we consume to our health to even whether we live or die. No other single technology has or will have such far-reaching consequences.

Back to top

  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • Text size
Increase text size Decrease text size

Comment [5]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

  • Where is the economist able to evaluate the ultimate operating costs of these new technologies? Replacing today’s methods of producing food and energy sounds exciting, but even when gasoline cost us $4, its wholesale value was less than $0.50 per pound and grain even less than that. Maybe in 100 years the price in today’s dollars for today’s sources will be up enough to make biotech routes competitive on bulk commodities, but we had better concentrate on high value items in the meantime.

    Think of pharmaceuticals where even the cheapest items are orders of magnitude costlier than food and energy. For example, aspirin sells for more than $50 per pound.

    If this very simplified view is right, it has important political implications. Many different ideas will have to be tried and only some of them will be successful, that is, leading to improvements in the standard of living. This is not a Manhattan project, but a job for free enterprise with rewards commensurate with the risks.

    Posted 18 March 2009, 14:00 by Howard Martin

  • It’s always exciting to know there are plenty of ways we can rectify or reduce the damage we have done to the blue planet. But the real six million problem is what are we doing now?

    Have those great ideas been introduced to others as wide as possible? Have people implemented them after knowing the knowledge. There is no one perfect answer to saving the earth right now, and maybe never. The only thing we can do now is do whatever we can and whenver we can. We need to share the knowledge and experience we have in order to keep everybody on the right track. Only by sharing and working closely we can make sure our effort is of good use. Globlisation is not only about economy, finance and commercial, it’s the fact that we are living on the same plant.

    What does the butterfly effect tell us? The weather is getting more and more unpredictable and abnormal. This is the consequence, but not the cause. We have to admit that as the “boss” of the earth, we have done enough selfish things. When we focus on GDP and CPI to count on our success, the planet and our offsprings are making sacrifice helplessly. It’s time to rethink.

    Posted 12 March 2009, 23:17 by Andie Na

  • Yes thats the direction in which science is moving. It is still at the stage of science, though there have been some developments toward technology – GM crops & medicine.

    It seems to be at the stage where electronics was 60 years back, but i am sure it is not going to take that long. Biotec will change our world the way electronics and infotech has done in the last 20-30 years.

    America’s lifting of the ban on stem cell research will accelerate the trend.

    Posted 12 March 2009, 20:50 by Kamal Gupta

  • I agree with a lot that you have to say here and I am a true believer in biotechnology’s potential. I am a genetic engineer myself and understand the rigours involved in producing a genetic “machine” to perform the tasks you suggest above. I have to say that there are 2 major barriers facing biotech and GM products:

    1)Lack of education and knowledge in the general public about GM materials/foods, its risks, its huge benefits. It is a language understood by an academic minority which often have trouble selling it to the general population and to political figures. Particular religious figures and “green” figures are working hard to instil fear into consumer’s minds on this topic which is more counterproductive than given credit for.

    2)Political headwinds – flowing on from the previous points. Governments have poorly incentivised R&D in developed countries which is not conducive to rapid development of these technologies. It is still mostly up to the VC’s and private investor’s to keep it alive and it is a very expensive exercise with significant risk. Singapore is the exception and look what is becoming of this R&D powerhouse – its time others woke up and took the next step. Also, we can’t forget the fossil fuel companies with their hands in many political pies.

    I also have to draw your attention to a point regarding stem cell therapies – the brain is the final frontier in this area as other mechanical/bionic solutions will probably exist for hearts/body parts etc well before stem cells can create replacement organs routinely. The time, effort and expense to develop this area of biotechnology (organ replacement) is immense and I believe that “by the end of this century” is a very ambitious time frame. The oldest stem cell therapy around (bone marrow transplant) has been very successful and is a notable exception here. We have a long way to go with this however the potential does exist.

    Something that may come earlier is training the body to repair itself through other measures – potentially using viruses. You have eluded to this in your article. Overall, we need more articles like your’s to get out into the public and into the hands of those with the balls to run with it and make a difference politically.

    Posted 12 March 2009, 19:42 by N C

  • All these new life extending technologies may sound great but they do not solve the problem of planet overpopulation. The contribute to it. If everyone lives forever where will we put them? Despite advances/efficiencies in feeding and sheltering people the fact remains that the planet is fixed in size. Instead of going 100 mph toward a brick wall we only slow our speed with technology. We will still hit the wall.

    For humans to survive we must adopt a new culture and philosophy. The technology is easy by comparison. Changing minds so that humans cease to act like a virus consuming and propogating endlessly is more difficult. The advances in technology is not the big picture.

    Posted 11 March 2009, 19:38 by Steve Pew

Commenting is closed for this article.

Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.

09 Feb 2010 · 09:25:17 PM GMT
I read the article with great interest and sure enough it is far fetched in several respects and right on target in few specific areas. As a scientist who did extensive research in pluripotent cells and manipulated DNA and RNA and again as a Business...
—Booma

In response to How biotech will reshape the global economy

15 Jan 2010 · 02:55:03 AM GMT
Maybe its not a gene variation, but a rejection of the body? If they didn’t have this gene variation, maybe it would be lethal?
—Pharmacy

In response to Prognosis for personalized medicine

13 Jan 2010 · 12:28:50 PM GMT
Calestous Juma has done great job focusing Africa’s Biotech future. There are numerous neglected diseases in Africa and Future Biotech should aim at Point-of-care Diagnostics, cost effective yet quality biodrugs, and vaccines to tackle the pres...
—Niranjan Kumar

In response to Africa’s biotech future

28 Oct 2009 · 12:54:37 PM GMT
Development of biotechnology is an expensive venture that many African countries cannot afford at the moment, so what can African countries do to attract more investments from outside the continent?
—Tony Chang

In response to Africa’s biotech future

15 Oct 2009 · 12:39:43 PM GMT
This article is important and interesting. When I discuss nano and bionano with students of IT, they think it is not related to them. And, most have never even heard of nanotech, let alone thought about it. When I suggest they look for jobs in thi...
—S Conger

In response to How biotech will reshape the global economy

05 Oct 2009 · 01:27:36 AM GMT
as far as we know HIV/AIDS,it kills white blood cells.what if we look for a cartain ways of killing this strong virus like coming up with chemical which will not kill the cells but kill the virus.
—samson

In response to How biotech will reshape the global economy