Seminar in Barcelona

During my internship at the Institute of Marine Science (ICM) from the Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC), I had the opportunity to carry out a talk on synthetic biology and our project in iGEM at the weekly meeting of the Department of Marine Biology and Oceanography.

I had an audience composed by biologists and marine scientists from diverse fields of study and years of experience, some of them related to molecular biology.

My talk started with a general introduction to synthetic biology as a science, definition and history. I connected my speech to the importance of outreach activities and worldwide brainstorming campaigns, such as international student contests such as iGEM. I explained what iGEM was all about, and how students get enrolled and develop really original projects and biological parts for building systems.

I finally came to the part where I talked about our team’s heterogeneity of disciplines, and explained the different ideas we came up at the birth of our iGEM team, and how we ended up choosing the one we are now developing. I made a general overview on the idea, the objectives, the construct, the theory, the applications and the future vision.

The interactive time was mainly composed of questions directed to the functioning of the consortium in different situations, and how quorum sensing worked between species. It also drifted to questions about how efficient was the system and how could we optimize it in the future.

Controversial opinions on the application of synthetic ecology, triggered the arrangement of a debate the next month with a larger group of scientists specialized on ecology, at a meeting called the Margalef Hour at the same institute. Here we discussed some recent papers on the origins, function and applications of ecologic-interaction-engineering as a sprouting branch of synthetic biology.Imagen


What do you know about Synthetic Biology?

We have published a quiz in order to know what people know and think about Synthetic Biology. Feel free to answer and spread it :).

If you want to answer it, please click the link that corresponds to your age.

Thank you very much!!

16-25 years old:

26 – 40 years old:

41-100 years old:


16 – 25 años:

26 – 40 años:

41-100 años:

iGEM Experiences II

My name is Arnau Montagud Aquino, I participated as a student in iGEM 2006 edition ( By the end of February of 2006, a professor that mentored me in my firsts months as a Molecular Biology lab intern bumped into me (yes, literally) in the cafeteria and ask me to go pay him a visit at his office later that day. He told me about a student competition hosted by MIT that involved physics, mathematicians, engineers and biology students. He told me that he came to know the competition through a former collaborator in a protein design project and that this man begged him for help in order to gather biological students. “Those physics are not aware of the mine field they are stepping on…”, he said.

In fact, from the very beginning iGEM got my attention, as, since I started my Biological grade, I looked for courses that merged Mathematics and Biology and, sadden about the scarcity of those, I found iGEM to be a unique opportunity to meet people with other views towards science and, more importantly, to work together on an idea in order to bring it to the real world. From that moment on, I have been involved in all Valencia iGEM participations. It’s been seven years of struggles, building dreams, seeing most of them shattered by the harsh reality and seeing some of them reach the designed ending. I could not choose one of them as my “favorite”. I remember with profound happiness my first participation, but I’m afraid that this is not because the project was more interesting or people build up a tighter team. It was just the first time that I met with such a diverse group of people, the first time that my mind blew up with science, with problems with solutions and with problems with no solutions…

In iGEM 2006 I was mainly doing molecular biology lab work. I was in charge with all the processes that involved the molecular cloning of E. coli, from design to quality check. In following iGEM, 2007, I also took care of clonings and, from that moment on, I step back and let others do the job as I helped people as an advisor. If there’s anything that I would like to improve from the way we do work at Valencia iGEM team is the presence of experienced advisors and graduate students.

My best experience in iGEM is, always, Jamboree’s Sunday morning. It does not matter if one wins ten prizes or none. The satisfaction of the job done, together with the happiness of meeting people that has undergone similar things to you and the (mild) hangover from the previous night celebration mix very well together.

iGEM has taught me one very important lesson: to truly work together within a team. I had worked previously with other students, but this was the first time that our project in real life was going to be evaluated inter pares. Nowadays, I see iGEM as a social experience as well as a scientific and educational one. I have sincerely recommended to all students I have met to participate in iGEM and I will continue doing so.

If I may give an advice: learn, take iGEM seriously, this is not a parade, but, then, do not take it as it was your one and only chance in your life to make something remarkable.

Interview with Justo Aznar Lucena M.D.

We will briefly mention part of the long curriculum of the interviewee, justo Aznar Lucea, Graduate in  Medicine and Surgery in the University of Valencia in 1960 and Doctor by the University of Navarra in Clinical Analysis and Hematology in 1964, with the grade of Award with Special DistinctionAssistant of the Service of Clinical Analysis and Hematology of the Universitary Clinic of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Navarra and helper of Practical Training  of the Chair of Biochemistry and physiology of the same institution. Research Associate in the Centre of Cytological Researches of the CSIC in the 60’s. Afterwards, he held important posts in the old hospital “La Fe” of Valencia, place where he  had the post of Head of the Biopathology Department between 1974 and 2006 (his retirement year). He is a distinguished member of some medical societies at national and international level, as the Spanish Society of Clinical Biopatology, the Mediterranean League against Thromboembolic Disease, The New York Academy of Sciences, between a wide list that can result in a lot more interviews.


In relation of bioethics, the subject which we are speaking about, he’s worked as teacher of Bioethics at the Papal Institute for the family John Paul II in the 90’s. Later, he got the post of  Manager in the Life Sciences Institute complementing it with the post of Director of the Bioethics Observatory and of the Oficial Master of Bioethics in the UCV, both in 2005. He belongs to the Spanish Society of Bioethics since 2001.


Furthermore he has been awarded with different prizes in the area of bioethics, of which the University Diploma Merit, given by UCV, emphasizes. He is author of different publications about bioethics as “Nascent human life. 200 Questions and Answers”. He has been awarded numerous times, being Price “III Millennium 2007”, given by the Academy of Sciences, Technology, Education and Humanities in the Bioethics area of Valencia in 2007. With such references and his checked experience during his long trajectory, he answers our questions about bioethics.


As you are a professional with extensive medical experience, how have you known about the area of synthetic biology?

Well, it was when I read, at the journal Science, the study of Craig Venter in which the synthesis of the genome of the bacterium “Mycoplasma micoides” was described.


As regards to the synthetic biology area, are you currently participating in some line of investigation related to it?

Really not, from the Bioethics Observatory we have only confined ourselves to do reports about ethical aspects; we have never done experimental research.


What do you think about the state of the art of synthetic biology nowadays?

I consider that, as all advances in sciences, it can have very beneficial results and applications;  however, it can result in applications which can present ethical conflicts. Because of that, we have to consider the technical (biological, biomedical) and the ethical aim to what these researches are intended for.


Well, knowing that, what are the challenges that you think that this discipline should tackle and what aspects it should correct referent to make easier its advance and applications development?

Scientific challenges are basically focused on studying in depth and understanding the biological and biomolecular mechanisms which control cellular life; all that could allow, as it has occurred, to create synthetic cellular structures, though for that would be necessary to study in depth the knowledge about these complex mechanisms. And, in relation to the ethical aspect, the priority will be to control the aims for what these experiences are destined.


Following the subject about the more potential applications of synthetic biology, it is speculated that other areas could be affected, as environmental bioremedy, industry… There is any area that you think that could be benefited thanks to the synthetic biology studies?

Actually, the area that I know more about is biomedicine. Undoubtedly, synthetic biology will complete the way to gene therapy, due to it could be useful and very beneficial to treat patients with molecular disorders which result in hereditary or chromosomal diseases. In that sense, it will clearly mean a really beneficial advance, among all that we will see that century. Regardless of biomedical area synthetic biology will be able to be applied for the production of clean fuel, food products, hydrocarbon or medicines transformation, among others.


Leaving a little your area, as regards industrial applications what is actually more mentioned about a more recurrent and promising use is the production of biofuels that doesn’t affect food supply; like ethanol, hydrogen, other alcohols… Do you think that we really could use bacterium to this purpose? And from that, what application do you think that has more future to turn into a substitute of fossil fuel?

I don’t have an specific idea because this is not my experimentation area, though because of what I have read and stared at, I consider that is a promising area, but it is still in very early and incipient phases. We have to know that, currently, the replacement of fossil fuel by biofuel obtained thank to biotechnology, looking at the number of current production, which I estimate around less of a 10%, gives the feeling that is slim and insufficient. From the ethical point of view, what I surely consider important is to avoid that the use of food resources to biofuel production doesn’t lead to transform farms, deflecting food resources to inadequate commercial or energetic aims. It should be always kept balanced.


Speaking a little about environmental applications, it doesn’t stop being paradoxical to public eyes because there is a fear in the public opinion of a possible leak, a lack of control of the product of a group of irresponsible scientists that, as it is normally said, “playing  God”. Do you think that this situation could occur?

I don’t think they’re playing God at all: they’re playing to be honest scientist who realize a practical work which can be useful to the humanity. Being God is something very different. On this side, I believe there are always inherent risks to the same technology in every advance. Then, the objective is to condition the experiments and the technological development to minimize the risks as far as possible, but it is never possible to rule out them, risks are inevitable. I consider that is positive science advances and not stops because of the unjustified fear to the negative consequences that it could have, but always regulating the advance under ethics.


If there was a leak or some of these risks came true, what consequences do you think that fact could carry?

I’m not an expert in these areas, but in my opinion, as a man in the street, I consider that to predict and think about the possible consequences it’s difficult. What we have to do it’s to try to provide the means to minimize the risks, but what I yes estimate important is that these risks, that always exist, don’t stop the development of a research that can have beneficial effects for a lot of people. I think that we have to take the risk, always counterbalancing it with its ethic assessment.


So the next question is now answered because it would be if the risks could overcome the current benefit.

I think there has to be always, from the ethical point of view, proportionality between risks and benefits. If the assumed risk is higher than the potential benefits, the practice    or the experiment are unacceptable from the ethical point of view; however is the risk is minor that the potential benefit, the possibility should be studied, undoubtedly. This ethical principle goes with all human practices.


Nowadays, in any case, the socio-political impact of the applications can be very deep. There are analysts as Juan Enríquez or Jeremy Rifkin that consider that the present century will be the one that attends on the industries of biological sciences, an explosion comparable to previous Industrial Revolutions. Do you think it is like that?

I think in this century we will see really spectacular advances in the area, because the computer advances, all advances derived from molecular biology, the control of the development biology, the modification of cellular types or whole organisms will revolutionize our life in a lot of senses. In the medical area, specifically in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering, I think there would be the major therapeutic advances of this century. It seems that indeed, it will have a similar impact to the one that the Industrial Revolution had; but these advances are really unpredictable. E. g., at present, there have been realizing assays of creating artificial hearts: it starts from a rat’s heart, we decellularize by perfusion of detergents and enzymes, leaving only a proteic scaffold that can be refilled with cells of the own patient, so they obtained heart is totally inmunocompatible with the patient, as well as being a heart of better quality than a donated heart. Nevertheless, there is the debate about that all these advances could be not accessible to all people and could result in social differences in function of the purchasing power of people. Synthetic biology can have similar effects, except that it possible to these advances not to arrive to all  people, which could result in social differences in function of the capacity they have to access to these resources. By the same token, synthetic biology can have similar effects, but in this case the differences would be mainly between nations and not between individuals, increasing possible differences between nations,  in so far as the new advances are or not affordable to some countries. Because of that we should guarantee that these technologies don’t increase the current differences.


Yes, the assistance shared to all the people in the world.

Or, that these advances developed in these areas are affordable to all people through a correct universal distributive social equity.


And, do you think society is prepared in the event of this revolution?

I consider society is prepared to receive all the advances presented, provided they are well presented, and society is informed so that they have a true and enough knowledge about these advances so, they could decide, with freedom, their acts. The information about advances is the key aspect. It has to be complete and acceptable for not experts. We could raise an analogy with a lot of the current economic problems derived by the unfair clauses of the contracts hide in the small print. Enough information should be given so after, so individuals, society and the groups which make up it could exercise their freedom with knowledge. A wide ability of transmission of knowledge is the key.


We notice there can be social controversies about synthetic biology that remind what happened at research with stem cells or GMO. There are very polarized opinions, from considering it as amorality until considering it since a transhumanist point of view which tell that these practices are essential to social development. What do you think about that?

As I have said before, information is the most important thing. For example, in relation to the subject about stem cells research, the judgment its use deserve will depend, for the major part, on the given information. For example, if we transmit that with embryonic stem cells we can cure illnesses, people will accept and assume it ethically; still if you transmit real data about the assays with stem cells and you tell them that there are only three realized with embrionary cells in contrast to more than three hundred realized with adult stem cells, maybe we can clarify them what is relevant or not on a level with research and what is ethical. At the end of all it is a responsibility of scientist who manage and develop the technology so people can decide. If, for example, it is said to people that they can cure damages in spinal cords with adult mother cells in a Rio de Janeiro clinic, people would spend their saving due to the research for something to cling and to have a hope. At industrial level it occurs at the same. It is necessary truthful information without ideological slants, only based on scientific reality to be able to balance and value risks and benefits.


Nowadays, the area of synthetic biology is developing, so we notice there could be a patentability of living creatures or products derived from them. ¿What do you think about giving patents of living being or product derived from them?

There’s a little time, a high legal body denied or considered negative the possibility to grant patents for experiments which require using embrionary human cells, because it means human beings destruction. In this sense, I consider all what benefit human beings and it’s not based on experiences which present ethic reprobation will be patentable. We shouldn’t be scare of science if it starts from appropriate ethic and by checked techniques.


And now, to finish, as regards scientific competitions as the one we are participating in, iGEM, what do you think about? Do you think they are a good way to interest students in these areas and students have more eagerness to continue and do more scientific advances on this area?

In my view stimulating young student with projects that can develop interest and research spirits, is fundamental. Certainly research is, in my opinion, the maxim expression of human intelligence and a great adventure to be able to go more deeply into our own nature. Working on researches that bring objectives and goods to society is something that, by itself, could be catalogued as very positive, what makes it as a fascinating fact. To open the ways by where youths can work on research, to facilitate their access to centers of technique level and to stimulate their research work, is magnificent. Whatever is to facilitate the splendid reality of researching is marvelous. I think there is no better option for an individual than working and investigate on the knowledge of different things that carry benefits for their fellows, that’s research, investigation. As I have repeated at some occasion on different forums, all the work developed on this area, as long as it confines itself to the truth, without tricks or manipulation, is fantastic. And if that is achieved by competitions as iGEM, I think it’s wonderful.

iGEM experiences

Hello everybody!  I’m Meritxell Notari and I’m 25 (almost 26), I’m a Biology graduate by the Universitat de València, later specialized in gentics. I took part on the 2008 iGEM with a project called “The hot yeast Project”  ( and I’m gonna telll you which has been my experience with synthetic biology till the present day:

My adventure at iGEM began during the 2007/2008 academic course during a molecular genetics lesson, where a guy called Arnau, introduced us a new concept in biology called sythetic biology, focusing particularly on iGEM . After this, the first thing I thought was: “How wierd! isn’t it? It would be nice to take part on this project!”. During that academic course, 2007/2008, I was part of the Universitat de València’s Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department Universitat de València, as an intern student, with professor Mercè Pamblanco. I told her my intentions to get into this world,  her answer was unsurpassable and she also helped me in everything she could: contacting advisors, telling when the synthetic biology courses and days took place… from then on everything was rolling on till the day I was told I was part of the Valencia-iGEM’08 Team!

The project with we took part was called “The hot yeast Project”, in which we charaterized a yeast which was able to keep its temperature and, as a consequence, was able to sustain the culture without any external energy input (electricity).We characterized different yeast strains with UCP1 protein (positive control, negative and two strians with different delections) supplied by Eduardo Rial from CIB-CISC. In fact, these strains were able to increase their culture media temperature. Besides, we characterized their growing kinetics and the temperature increasing results adjust with each stran own growing kinetics. This means, the bigger is the time the yeast spends in completing exponential growing phase, longer they spend to increase the medium temperature. Both controls, postitve and negative don’t increase their temperature at all, but they suffer a progressive decreasing of the temperature, as expected according to Newton’s cooling law. These results are on the paper published on  New Biotechonology (Vol. 26, N. 6, December 2009) titled: “Yeast cultures with UCP1 uncoupling activity as a heating device” .

My main work was working at the wet lab, although we were very few people on it, everyboy did all the tasks requiered to reach the project’s objectives.

It was a magnificent summer (with part of spring and autum) that I wouldn’t change for anything at all  and I’d repeat again if I had the chance. All the memories I keep, the best (like the NYC visit with my fellows, dinners, flats, the expected results…) the good ones (watching the job rewarded) and the not-so-good (argument that happen even in the best  of the families) are unique and unrepeatible -and you also can learn from them for your normal days.

It’s true that there are always things that you would change, but I don’t see it as a negative feature but as little details you can change and improve, as some kind of learning.

Whe iGEM is over, when you’re in Boston, yoy think “Guys it’s over! Carpe diem!”. You always keep memories, photos with you fellows, phone numbers you never erase… and all this stuff is coomo to the few lucky ones who have the chance to take part on iGEM. After my participation, I’ve been linked to the following editions: synthetic biology days, different projects I’ve the pleasure to share with different iGEM’08 team members, speaks to explain the project… it’s a feeling you can’t get rid of easily and I don’t want to get rid of.

Despite of the current situation, it’s always a bonus having some synthetic biology rudiements and having taking part on iGEM because, despite scientific world is pretty big, synthetic isn’t. Thanks to iGEM project I took part for a time on the BioModularH2  project, which encouraged me to retake my studies in the genetics field and be able to enrole in certain projects in which, before my iGEM time, I would have not been capable to enrole in

Because of all this, it’s an eperience I wouldn’t change for anything and I strongly recomend to all the studients who want, to take part and to get into synthetic biology. FOr me, make my living from science is a dream and this is a very good bengining to know if you can really live your dream and not daydreaming your life.

Meritxell Notari

 Valencia-iGEM 2008 Team  Member

Biohacking: Do it yourself!

Despite of being a nascent discipline which is yet to be consolidated (not in vane, the massive sequence data obtention and analysis, as well as the metabolic network characterization employed for modelling, are quite recent breakthroughs) snythetic biology is in a position in which is able to influence in many social groups and disciplines as our present case shows us. .

Biohacking was born at the begining of the past decade almost parallel to synthbio (the first open biohacking meeting took place in March 2000) with a firm, radical principle: considreing that the current research structure based basicly in universities and companies is nocive for progress and knowledge democratizing. Due to this, biohackers or “garage genetists” claim another kind of research. These researcher are mostly professional who get tired of ordinary investigation, but they also include autodidact who do not work profesionally on molecular biology but who have decided to join to an enterprise ruled by two fundamental principles: the “do it yourself” spirit (not in vane, many reactants, protocols and equipments are made by biohackers themselves as can be seen on the homemade PCR equpment below seen in, being able sometimes to create a full lab for ridiculous costs) and open collaboration: Creative Commons license is ubiquous, everthing is shared and everone gives theis opinion in order to improve.


Almost all the biohacking investigations take E.coli as their base (despite of this, many other organisms have gained their own foothold),. All kind of research can be found on biohacking initiatives: biofuels obtention, diagnose methods for iron metabolism diseases, bacteria able to detect the presence of melanin on even new vaccines developpement. Due to this enormous chances, many biohacking advocates proclaim that it could play a major role in a future biotech similar to the one which took place in Silicon Valley and all the enterprises that began in autodidact’s garages (one example that the biohacking advocates usually employ as an argument is the case of Agribiotics Inc, a company founded by a retired researcher on his own garage which ended up sold by a 24,000,000 USD $ value).

Despite of these perspective, most of the scientific comunity considers that biohacking, despite of being an initiative which could ease making society accept molecular biology and the divulgation of all it’s chances, is still far away from becoming a real research alternative due to the studied subjects’ complexity, the aparent lack of formation in may researchers and the lack of standarization on the employed parts.  From the point of view of this blog writers, the dichotomy planted here is fake because, on same way we see on information technologies, we can find many levels (user, professional) on molecular biology); apart from, as we stated before, biohacking’s potentital to divulgate molecular biology is enormous. Another point is that this dichotomy is planted only for the most basical investigation, leaving apart applications developpement, in which these problems, despite of continue existing, are easier to overcome.Preciesly is on the applications developpement problems where synthetic biology can be a really helpful tool thought it parts and chassis standarization philosophy, so with an organism-standarized catalog the circuits design can become something friendly for everyone

References: (en español)

iGEM: why of all this

Despite of our wish for do not having an ending date for our blog (at least initially) so we could share our passion for debates and divulgation, denying that this blog has no reason for existing apart from those which were mentioned before would be totally fake. We can’t deny that, despite of our intention, this blog was born with a predestinantion charge: to serve as a main feature to the human practises for our project for the next iGEM contest .

El logotipo de la competición

iGEM (acronym for International Genetic Engineering Machine) it’s an initiative born in 2003 during the students’ Independent Activities Period in which five teams of students compited in order to make blink cells. In 2004 the competition grew to a contest in which took part 5 different universities from the USA, reaching the international expansion in 2005.

In the following years, the number of participating universites and different functions implemented on the organisms grew so unexpectedly quick that nowadays, near 160 teams from universities from all around the world take part on the competition. On the other side, the number and vareity of applications and circuits designed during the history of the contest till the present day is as big as growing of the contest: bacteria able to detect arsenium in water, Escherichia Coli capable to produce banana or peppermint scents when they detect certain cheimcals on the media or yeast colonies which could act as screen pixels, only to mention some examples. Almost everything has been seen in the contest. Despite of this variety, there a concept which vertebrates every project’s nature: standarization.

At the iGEM projects it’s not enough to copy, cut and paste genes in the random way that classical  genetic engineering does: the engineering approach rules (not in vane, the competition’s director is an Apple ex-engineering) and as important as cutting, copying and pasting the DNA fragment, is to know what does exactly, know with which other fragments can work better, see working optimals and, ultimately, create a parts catalog which eases the job and make genetic engineering a real engineering in which anyone is able to switch parts and reach to desing living beings de novo.

This contest, depsite of its competitive nature, has been the media through which everyone who’s taking part on our project has heard about synthetic biology and alll the chances it offers (not in vane, the organization considers this is the main objective of the contest) but it’s also the way to begin having a real contact with the discipline: designing the synthetic biology, taking care of all the related features (reseach and developping the applications, designing gene circuits, modelizing the circuit as a metabolic network using systems biology techniques) including some features as mundane as searching fundings or bioetich debate, allowing us to present the results on the jamboree, either in the european phase or, if everything works and we have convinced the judges at MIT .

Thus, linking with our intentions declaration, we want you to take part with us, even if you only do so snooping around and asking questions.

More information:

Where will synthetic biology lead us?By Michael Specter

Aunque ya han pasado unos años desde su publicación, este artículo de Michael Specter en The New Yorker cuenta de una manera muy interesante los inicios de la Biología Sintética y nos hace reflexionar sobre las implicaciones éticas que esta disciplina lleva consigo; más en concreto, el papel que ha jugado en la producción de artemisinina, un fármaco contra la malaria que ha ayudado a salvar millones de vidas.

Tal y como se plantea en este artículo, ¿podemos afirmar que a día de hoy estamos más cerca de ser capaces  de reprogramar organismos a nuestra medida? ¿Ha mejorado la estandarización la eficiencia de la Ingeniería genética, o todavía queda mucho camino por andar para ello?

Although it has been a few years since its publication, this article by Michael Specter in The New Yorker describes in a very interesting way the beginnings of Synthetic Biology and makes us think over the ethical aspects that this discipline implies, more specifically, he narrates the role Synthetic Biology has played in the production of artemisinin, a malaria drug that has helped save millions of lives.

As proposed in this article ¿Can we affirm nowadays we are closer to be able to reprogram organism at our will to perform completeley new functions?¿Has Synthetic Biology improved the efficiency of genetically engineering, or is there still a long way to walk?

Introduction and intentions declaration

Before we begin with the ordinary posts, there’s a thought from all the people from our team we’d like to share with you: we live in a thrilling world, there’s no doubt about it. We’ve evolved to be conscious of this fact and get amazed with the patterns we found in nature. One way or another, knowledge makes us feel comfortable, no one doubts this. Science, the most accurate tool we have to reach this knowledge, despite not being perfect due to its asymptotic approach, it’s an incredibly powerful tool. And it’s powerful in two different ways.

Science’s strength comes from two different approaches because it’s does not only unweave the rainbow giving us answers about the universe with a growing accuracy, but also these answers come with a present in the shape of control above the studied phenomena (which can be more or less limited depending of the phenomenon) like if it was a fire brought to us by a (modern) Prometheus. Answers always come with that possibility, which is no exent of risk, and, on the profits and benefits of this new chances, we build that construct we call society. Much of what we are nowadays is due to science and it’s daughters, the engineering and the technique. It happened ten thousand years ago when we began taming species for agriculture. And it’s happening right here and right now.

Almost sixty years ago, in a lab from Cavendish Institute, James Watson and Francis Crick gave birth to one of the most successful hits in modern science history: finally all the information that configures all the beings at the biosphere had a chance to be understood and in consequence, try to be controlled. It’s a hard enterprise of growing complexity that perhaps will never reach to an end, but we will never be able to say that this enterprise was a failure at all, as all the genetic engineering-derived applications prove us. As the synthetic biology proves us.

Thereby, synthetic biology stands as the next step in chances of biological information control:it means stop searching blindly at the seas of information that conform the species’s genomes to, using all our accumulated knowledge about genes,designing programming  circuits which allow us to take profit from all the biosphere’s versatility in order to solve many of the problems that menace us.

As we said before, science fascinates us  and so does everything we can do with it. But it’s true these chances have risks at many levels, despite of which, science stands as our best tool. Because of this, we expect to make this blog become a place where we can share our enthusiasm and offer some thoughts about the wonderful chances that are coming.

Enjoy the trip!