Easac'10 sb indd

EASAC 

Realising European potential in synthetic biology | December 2010 |    25

for example, in helping to clarify epigenetics with 

regard to cell reprogramming and molecular memory 

systems; and this application of synthetic biology 

in the new Network of Excellence EpigeneSys is a 

valuable initiative. We advise that, overall, funding 

for synthetic biology should be at least as high in 

the Seventh Framework Programme as in the Sixth 

and this funding should be allocated for laboratory 

work as well as for support actions. An increased 

focus on synthetic biology should be included as 

part of the current strategic discussions about 

the Eighth Framework Programme. DG Research 

should also consider the opportunities afforded 

by synthetic biology in its strategic support for the 

current portfolio of Technology Platforms and Joint 

Technology Initiatives.

•   Education and training. It is essential to commit to 

training the next generation of scientists to bridge 

between engineering and biology disciplines while 

also teaching the information and skills needed from 

chemistry, physics and informatics. This is required 

at all levels in higher education from undergraduate 

through to PhD programmes. Centres of Excellence 

can help to provide the necessary multi-disciplinary 

training and motivation in new Master’s and PhD 

programmes. Options for creating the ‘European 

Graduate School in Synthetic Biology’ might be 

developed based on the original European Molecular 

Biology Organisation (EMBO) model in the 1980s 

as well as extending current initiatives in several 

Member States relating to ‘molecular life sciences’. 

Co-supervision across national boundaries is one 

way to create additional fl exibility in provision of 

training to motivate students. Although opportunities 

have been insuffi ciently exploited throughout 

higher education for biologists to improve their 

ability to think quantitatively and for engineers to 

be given insight into the techniques employed in 

the biosciences, nevertheless some Member States 

already provide Master’s courses in synthetic biology. 

It is important to share best practice from those 

Member States who have already introduced such 

courses, in order to build comparable teaching 

capacity across the EU.

•   Translational steps towards innovation. Although 

there is much to be accomplished in fundamental 

research, it is also vital for the European Commission 

to support the translational research and reduction 

to practice that will provide proof of concept in the 

envisaged applications. There is often a gap between 

work on the fundamental technologies (such as 

the design of minimal genomes and model circuits) 

and the engineered biological applications. There 

must be an appropriate commitment of resources 

to refi ne and optimise the tools and this will require 

developing additional models for supporting 

translational science. However, it is also important 

not to fi nalise the tools too early in development 

of applications lest there is risk of infl exibility in 

standardising platform technologies. Public sector 

fi nancial support across the R&D continuum might 

also help to counter any concerns that ‘big business’ 

will monopolise the outputs.

•   Research priorities. It is not the purpose of the 

present report to specify priorities for EU-funded 

research in synthetic biology. The individual outputs 

from the academies, cited throughout this report 

review particular research areas where the European 

contribution to synthetic biology might be fruitful 

and we emphasise that it is important to advance 

mammalian synthetic biology. The EASAC Working 

Group identifi ed two other general topics where 

further EU support is warranted. First, investment 

in research to generate the tools (for example, 

expanding the library of interoperable parts) for 

use by the scientifi c community in developing safe 

biological systems. This requires wider debate 

on ‘what is safe’. Secondly, the development of 

biological systems with enhanced genetic stability, 

because the drift of genetic information that 

characterises any natural biological system is a 

handicap for production-oriented applications.

•   Forming a new professional society. The present 

relative lack of an organised synthetic biology 

community across the EU might usefully be addressed 

by the creation of a new scientifi c society. Although 

such an organisation should, preferably, come 

into being from ‘bottom-up’ initiatives, it might be 

quicker if ‘top-down’ interests were also expressed. 

EASAC invites the European Commission to consider 

what role it could play in facilitating the formation of 

a new organisation.

(2) European competitiveness

Individual Member States have already achieved 

a leadership position in some of the tools used in 

synthetic biology. For example, Germany is strong in 

oligonucleotide and synthetic gene supply companies 

(such as the company Gene Art). Member States have 

also initiated major research centres in synthetic biology. 

For example:

•   Germany, the Cluster of Excellence in Biological 

Signalling Studies at the University of Freiburg and the 

Center for Synthetic Microbiology, a joint venture of 

the University of Marburg and the Max Planck Society;

•   UK, the Imperial College London Institute of Systems 

and Synthetic Biology;

•   The Netherlands, the new/redistributed funding at 

Delft University (Department of Bionanoscience), 

University of Groningen (Centre for synthetic Biology) 

---