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)