INNOVATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
RETHINKING INNOVATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
(Source: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/innovation-in-biotechnology - A Salute to DARPA!)
Cort Wrotnowski
BioSpark Associates, LLC
Greenwich, CT
Nov. 19, 2018
Andreas Wagner wrote a book a few years ago titled "Arrival of the Fittest". Generally well received, this well-done and well-thought out work explored the question "Does Nature Innovate?" The short answer is yes. The other question is "How?" He focused on the how of bacterial adaptations to new substrates as well as the "redundancy" of what he called metabolic networks for breaking down glucose.
The ability of bacteria to break down the same substrate in a bewildering array of different biochemistries says much about the nature of evolution. By building in multiple biochemical pathways which can apparently shift in relation to each other, bacteria possess a remarkable resiliency that explains how they can thrive in innumberable types of environments, or ecological niches.
Professor Wagner has continued to explore this phenomena. But what I find curious is how these insights can bear on how humans innovate in research - and biotechnology in particular.
It becomes a peculiar mission. For example, the leading professional organization for the biotechnology industry is BIO. Originally, that stood for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. But in the 90s, it was decided to change that to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Not to miss a beat, they were quick to catch a ride on the Innovation Wave sweeping corporate America.
The only problem with this is the realization that every time a paper is published, or some experiment is done, innovation is being done as well. And it shows up in every pore of the work that goes into such research. From the unreported innovation of a lab technician who fixes some piece of equipment to keep it running, to the researcher who develops a modified method of measurement with a newly synthesized reagent, or a different kind of sensor. Innovation can also be in the form of mathematical manipulations of the experimental design. The emerging field of bioinformatics is increasingly sophisticated in its ability to model different biological phenomena and derive useful insights for actual chemical synthesis.
One gets into a semantic debate over "innovation" versus "invention". I regard it as a difference without distinction. Arguably one gets patents and the other doesn't, but how you usefully draw a distinction is still unclear..
Is there a typology or some kind of continuum to consider when evaluating innovation in biotechnology? If so, it is not easy to see. When I look over papers in Science and try to assess them for what is actually innovative, the answer is not clear. But what is clear is that the results of some of these experiments produce provocative conclusions that can change how you understand a particular area of phenomena.
The 31 August 2018 issue of Science had as its theme, "Technologies Transforming Biology". Interestingly, the graphic showed a mobius strip with the surface populated with researchers, cells, circuits, peptide and DNA helices. What was unclear about the graphic was whether items were attaching to or detaching from the mobius strip.
What is also peculiar about this choice of graphic is the reference to creating something technically one-dimensional when the nature of transformation would be multi-dimensional. Frankly, I am not sure it captures or expresses the concept of transformation and the implication that this transformation is predicated on new and unexpected technologies which will be added over time.
Super-resolution microscopy is a good and obvious choice. CRISPR too, but CRISPR begs a question. Won't yet other gene editing technologies come along to further transform biology and maybe even render CRISPR obsolete?
But to come back to the original issue, what can we learn from Nature about innovating? For now, that is my quest and my question.
Establishing useful equivalencies between the apparently conscious innovating of Man with the apparently unconscious innovating of Nature is tricky. If you line up a number of traits found in different species that compare with things Man does, it gets even more confusing. A favorite example is napthalene - better known as moth balls. That distinctive aroma still discourages moths from laying their eggs. Discovered in the 1820s by distilling coal tar, napthalene is a simple fusion of two benzene rings. To quote from Wikipedia on napthalene...
The Structure of Napthalene, from Wikipedia
"by magnolias and certain species of deer, as well as the Formosan subterranean termite, possibly produced by the termite as a repellant against "ants, poisonous fungi and nematode worms."[21] Some strains of the endophytic fungus Muscodor albus produce naphthalene among a range of volatile organic compounds, while Muscodor vitigenus produces naphthalene almost exclusively.[22]"
we can see that this compound is produced by a variety of organisms. Should we just regard Man's organic synthesis or extraction as just one more act of Nature? Or should we conclude that what is extracted from coal tar was produced by these organisms millions of years ago?
What seems typical is that any time there is a report of a successful new pathway for synthesis of a complex organic compound, we have to ask if whether or not some organism yet to be discovered or analyzed has been making this compound already for a very long time.
So, the research continues. How does Nature Innovate? Does Man do it differently? Better? The same? These are not rhetorical questions. I believe a lot hinges on a good and useful answer. If we can adapt Nature's methods, this will reduce costs, time and environmental impacts for a range of commercial compounds. Stay tuned.
(Source: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/innovation-in-biotechnology - A Salute to DARPA!)
Cort Wrotnowski
BioSpark Associates, LLC
Greenwich, CT
Nov. 19, 2018
Andreas Wagner wrote a book a few years ago titled "Arrival of the Fittest". Generally well received, this well-done and well-thought out work explored the question "Does Nature Innovate?" The short answer is yes. The other question is "How?" He focused on the how of bacterial adaptations to new substrates as well as the "redundancy" of what he called metabolic networks for breaking down glucose.
The ability of bacteria to break down the same substrate in a bewildering array of different biochemistries says much about the nature of evolution. By building in multiple biochemical pathways which can apparently shift in relation to each other, bacteria possess a remarkable resiliency that explains how they can thrive in innumberable types of environments, or ecological niches.
Professor Wagner has continued to explore this phenomena. But what I find curious is how these insights can bear on how humans innovate in research - and biotechnology in particular.
It becomes a peculiar mission. For example, the leading professional organization for the biotechnology industry is BIO. Originally, that stood for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. But in the 90s, it was decided to change that to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Not to miss a beat, they were quick to catch a ride on the Innovation Wave sweeping corporate America.
The only problem with this is the realization that every time a paper is published, or some experiment is done, innovation is being done as well. And it shows up in every pore of the work that goes into such research. From the unreported innovation of a lab technician who fixes some piece of equipment to keep it running, to the researcher who develops a modified method of measurement with a newly synthesized reagent, or a different kind of sensor. Innovation can also be in the form of mathematical manipulations of the experimental design. The emerging field of bioinformatics is increasingly sophisticated in its ability to model different biological phenomena and derive useful insights for actual chemical synthesis.
One gets into a semantic debate over "innovation" versus "invention". I regard it as a difference without distinction. Arguably one gets patents and the other doesn't, but how you usefully draw a distinction is still unclear..
Is there a typology or some kind of continuum to consider when evaluating innovation in biotechnology? If so, it is not easy to see. When I look over papers in Science and try to assess them for what is actually innovative, the answer is not clear. But what is clear is that the results of some of these experiments produce provocative conclusions that can change how you understand a particular area of phenomena.
The 31 August 2018 issue of Science had as its theme, "Technologies Transforming Biology". Interestingly, the graphic showed a mobius strip with the surface populated with researchers, cells, circuits, peptide and DNA helices. What was unclear about the graphic was whether items were attaching to or detaching from the mobius strip.
What is also peculiar about this choice of graphic is the reference to creating something technically one-dimensional when the nature of transformation would be multi-dimensional. Frankly, I am not sure it captures or expresses the concept of transformation and the implication that this transformation is predicated on new and unexpected technologies which will be added over time.
Super-resolution microscopy is a good and obvious choice. CRISPR too, but CRISPR begs a question. Won't yet other gene editing technologies come along to further transform biology and maybe even render CRISPR obsolete?
But to come back to the original issue, what can we learn from Nature about innovating? For now, that is my quest and my question.
Establishing useful equivalencies between the apparently conscious innovating of Man with the apparently unconscious innovating of Nature is tricky. If you line up a number of traits found in different species that compare with things Man does, it gets even more confusing. A favorite example is napthalene - better known as moth balls. That distinctive aroma still discourages moths from laying their eggs. Discovered in the 1820s by distilling coal tar, napthalene is a simple fusion of two benzene rings. To quote from Wikipedia on napthalene...
The Structure of Napthalene, from Wikipedia"by magnolias and certain species of deer, as well as the Formosan subterranean termite, possibly produced by the termite as a repellant against "ants, poisonous fungi and nematode worms."[21] Some strains of the endophytic fungus Muscodor albus produce naphthalene among a range of volatile organic compounds, while Muscodor vitigenus produces naphthalene almost exclusively.[22]"
we can see that this compound is produced by a variety of organisms. Should we just regard Man's organic synthesis or extraction as just one more act of Nature? Or should we conclude that what is extracted from coal tar was produced by these organisms millions of years ago?
What seems typical is that any time there is a report of a successful new pathway for synthesis of a complex organic compound, we have to ask if whether or not some organism yet to be discovered or analyzed has been making this compound already for a very long time.
So, the research continues. How does Nature Innovate? Does Man do it differently? Better? The same? These are not rhetorical questions. I believe a lot hinges on a good and useful answer. If we can adapt Nature's methods, this will reduce costs, time and environmental impacts for a range of commercial compounds. Stay tuned.
Comments
Post a Comment