Reacción a "More than thirty scientists warn in Science about the dangers of synthesizing 'mirror bacteria'"

Mirror Life refers to the concept of creating or studying life forms that employ mirror versions of the biomolecules found in natural organisms. In conventional biology, life is based on chiral molecules with a specific orientation: for example, amino acids are predominantly levorotatory (L-forms), while sugars in nucleic acids are right-handed (D-forms). This chirality is a fundamental building block of biochemistry as we know it. Exploring mirror life challenges our understanding of the fundamentals of biology and the universality of biochemical principles, opening up questions about the possibility of alternative forms on other planets.

In all the Synthetic Biology courses I teach, I include this topic and discuss the progress made in this field. I recognise that it is one of the topics that has the greatest impact on students. The recent articles in Science and the related report on the associated risks are certainly relevant and timely. However, reading them, I can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. In 1969, Jon Beckwith announced at a press conference the first isolation of a gene from DNA, while warning society about the potential dangers of manipulating genetic material, a then nascent field. In my talks, I often present Beckwith as an emblematic example of what I call the ‘firefighter-pyromaniac paradox’: someone who lights a fire, warns about the resulting problem, and then sets himself up as the fixer, drawing attention to his field.

Perhaps something similar is now happening with synthetic biology in general, and mirror life in particular. On the one hand, the possibility of creating such life inspires awe and fascination; on the other, it raises concerns about potential problems. In a sense, scientists create the challenge, then warn of its risks, and finally propose solutions under their leadership. Without adequate pedagogy, it is legitimate to question why this quest was initiated in the first place.

My perspective on the issue and my reaction to the Science article (plus the report) includes several considerations:

1. Scientific curiosity. From this point of view, exploring alternative life forms with opposite chirality is fascinating. However, we must be realistic: although we have made progress in creating mirror molecules and macromolecules, we are far from building a functional living cell from scratch, even using conventional chirality. I believe we are at least 10-20 years away.
2. Beneficial applications. The Science article focuses on the risks, but it is crucial to highlight the possible advantages as well. Focusing the narrative solely on the dangers may alienate the public, as scientific curiosity alone does not justify venturing into such uncharted and potentially dangerous territory.
3. Governance and oversight. I am concerned that the panel charged with drafting this report is composed almost exclusively of US (or US-orbiting) scientists, with little international representation. Given that the risks and benefits of this research have global implications, it is essential to include actors from diverse regions and contexts in the debate.

In my case, after years of developing genetic technologies to enhance the biodegradative capacity of environmental bacteria, I have found a general rejection of the idea of using laboratory-engineered organisms for bioremediation. This is even when their use would be crucial in the context of climate change.

I have therefore worked for years to reframe the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), promoting an approach that does not present them as tools of domination over nature, but as a dialogue with the biological world: a partnership that leads to mutual benefits. This approach can facilitate a more positive and acceptable perception, framing research as a search for a shared purpose. In this sense, I insist on highlighting the possible beneficial applications of mirror life.

In any case, as this concept represents a step into the unknown, we must approach it with caution, learning from past mistakes in communicating innovations to the public. The stumbles of the pioneers of genetic engineering provoked a significant public backlash, and we must do our best to avoid repeating those experiences.