Q & A with scientist Craig Venter

What have you done that is new?

This is the first time anyone has built an entire 1.08 million base pair chromosome, transplanted that chromosome into a recipient cell and for that chromosome to take over that cell, effectively converting it into a new species defined by the chromosome. So it is a whole new paradigm, the first time we have a cell that is totally controlled 100 per cent by a synthetic chromosome.

Do you consider this to be synthetic life?

We're defining it as synthetic life because it's totally determined by the synthetic chromosome. We do start with a living cell but the synthetic chromosome transforms that living cell to this new synthetic cell.

There are no single elements of the recipient cell. Our synthetic cell has undergone over a billion replication events and the only DNA in it is the synthetic DNA and the only proteins are those coded for by the synthetic DNA. We don't make the proteins synthetically, we don't make the cells synthetically. All that is dictated by the chromosome. We do not consider this to be creating life from scratch but rather we are creating new life out of existing life using synthetic DNA to reprogramme the cells to form new cells that are specified by the synthetic DNA.

Why did you choose the microbe mycoplasma mycoides?

This is step one, a proof of the paradigm. It makes sense to start with something that we know should be biologically active, if we can make it accurately. Proving that this is possible is no minor feat. It changes the stage from hypothetical to real.

So is this new form of life a replicating, free-living organism?

That is correct, only it is only free-living in the sense that it grows in the laboratory in a very rich culture media so it wouldn't survive in the outside environment. Given the right nutrients in the laboratory it is self-replicating on its own.

How difficult was this?

At one time there was just one error in over a million base pairs, and we found that as a result you don't get life. So this was very difficult. I was predicting for the past three years that we would achieve this breakthrough, so I've learnt not to do predictions.

What are you hoping to achieve?

The purpose is to try to understand the basic nature of life, and the minimal sets of genes needed for life. We do not know all the gene functions in any single cell. We don't know what they do, we don't know how they all work so we've been trying for 15 years to come up with ways to be able to define that even for simple cells.

So that is the key part of the next stage. But over the years the uses of this technology have become much more apparent to us and to others. It's a powerful technology for trying to design specific functions into organisms, for example to manufacture new fuels out of carbon dioxide or to create new vaccines rapidly instead of the long delays we have.

I liken it to the 1940s and 1950s when the electronics revolution was still getting going. The people then building circuits probably had very little notion about BlackBerry phones or iPhones or personal computers. It's probably hard to imagine all the applications of this technology. Our view is that we're going from 6.8 billion to 9 billion people in the next 30 to 40 years, and we can't provide the food, the energy, clean water or medicines for the 6.8 billion, so we need some radical new technology to be able to do that without destroying the planet for 9 billion people.

Are you playing God with life?

We've covered this before because it's almost a cliche every time there's a new breakthrough in science, particularly in biology. Science is understanding life at its most basic levels and trying to use that knowledge for the betterment of humanity so I think we are part of the progression of scientific knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Are you concerned that this technology may be misused?

It's a powerful technology and I've proposed new regulations in this field because I feel the existing ones don't go far enough. Because we're the inventors and developers of this we want to see everything that can be done to prevent misuse of this technology.

I've proposed regulating the companies that synthesise DNA, to screen [the DNA being synthesised] against harmful agents, and we've given feedback on improving those screens and being more rigorous. I've been briefing the US Congress on this.

I think this is the first incidence in science where the extensive bioethical review took place before the experiments were done.

- INDEPENDENT