“We are Earth’s Tech Support,” declared Randall Kirk, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors and former CEO of Intrexon. His company is one of the biggest developers of synthetic biology (or engineering biology) applications in therapeutics, agriculture and chemicals.
“We are Earth’s Tech Support,” declared Randall Kirk, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors and former CEO of Intrexon. Intrexon is one of the biggest developers of synthetic biology (or engineering biology) applications in therapeutics, agriculture and chemicals. Kirk gave a keynote speech at Synbio Markets on synthetic biology’s struggle to break into mainstream markets and its revolutionary new approach for industrial biotech in the food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and materials sectors.
Before these new technologies can save the world, they need to be accepted and get to market. Companies must overcome the usual hurdles in finding investment and meeting regulatory requirements. They must find compatible scale-up partners and face new challenges in communicating the benefits and safety of their novel technology to society.
Partnerships for Success
Collaborations are beginning to blossom in synthetic biology. The field is often likened to the silicon chip industry. In its infancy, a single company would design, build and use their own chips. Now, companies outsource the design, building, testing and manufacture of chips along a structured value chain thanks to standardization of parts and uniformity in the field. This took years to achieve. Synthetic biology companies are currently developing their own unique tools to perform new feats in engineering biotechnology. Standardization is the dream and, to achieve this, companies must work together to break into the market.
A striking partnership at the conference was that of AMSilk and Airbus. The airline industry has a problem: they must increase fuel efficiency by reducing weight of their aircraft without compromising on safety. Composite materials are an alternative to hefty sheet metals and AMSilk produces a durable but lightweight material: synthetic spider silk. “AMSilk is interesting for its energy absorption, which is important for safety of the aircraft,” Detlev Konigorski of Airbus explains. This partnership could help Airbus develop safe new materials while helping the carbon footprint of the airline industry.
One of the kings of collaboration is Ginkgo Bioworks. Ginkgo uses several automated platforms to speed up and precisely carry out genetic manipulation, growth and testing of cells. To build their analytical power, they collaborated with Berkeley Lights, whose technology allows functional screening of thousands of cells simultaneously, increasing throughput.
Ginkgo has used this actively in their healthcare collaborations, such as a recent team-up with Synlogic, a microbiome therapeutics company developing living medicines. Ginkgo used its platform to increase the potency of Synlogic’sE. coli-based drug in non-human primates in less than a year. Ginkgo CCO Matt McKnight wants to build on these partnerships by partnering with early-stage companies. They recently announced a $350 m platform to build companies using Ginkgo’s foundries. He foresees more partnerships in the synthetic biology space in future, “I think we shouldn’t have full stack engineering biology companies. In any discipline, we don’t see this. People work together.”
Chemicals giant BASF is also interested in partnering with synthetic biology companies. Markus Pompejus, Vice President for Innovation and Scouting addressed the conference in Berlin citing the company’s wide range of products. “In principal, many products could be produced with biotech methods. Synbio is a research topic, but biotech is the application,” Pompejus says.
Partnering may be off-putting for early-stage companies who want to maximize ownership of their company and the topic came up repeatedly at Synbio Markets. “Where do you draw the line? Where do you co-develop with customers or should you do it more yourself?” asks session chair James Hallinan of Cambridge Consultants, an expert engineering firm.
“Depends where you are,” says Alexandre Zanghellini of protein design company Arzeda, “The later you partner, the more value you capture. You certainly want to keep the process propriety until the point where it can be scaled, then partner with marketing, scale up and development partners.”
Talking Tech and Selling Solutions
Synthetic biology exists at the nexus of biology and nearly every other field. It’s less a field of study and more of a precision engineering approach to traditional biotechnology using standardized tools and platforms. Kirk argued in his speech humanity has been using synthetic biology for thousands of years, using crop breeding as an example of humans precisely selecting and breeding desirable traits to engineer better strains of corn, for example. Now our role in the world has changed.
“We’ve been doing it for 12,000 years and we’ve been doing it without thinking of the consequences. Synthetic biology allows us tremendous specificity and potential to solve world problems by targeting individual species,” he said.
How does this help us synthetic biology products access new and existing markets? “Every process has biology in it,” McKnight says. Inscripta’s CCO Jason Gammack thinks the solution lies in getting a few tangible products to lead the way. “We need to make the products tangible. In the US we’re in hyperdrive mode. Two years ago, there was very little. Now, Impossible Foods is in Burger King,” says Gammack. Gary Lin of Purple Orange Ventures thinks we need to raise the profile of synthetic biology among the public, adding “One of the hard challenges, we need policymakers and government funding to support this. The amount of capital gone into this space is a drop in the ocean.”
The issue spills over into the regulation of gene-edited technologies, especially in Europe. “We recently had a debate on CRISPR plants,” says Nadine Bongaerts-Duportet of Science Matters and Hello Tomorrow. The European Union regulations says CRISPR-edited crops are defined as genetically modified (GM), while those edited by radiation exposure are not. Bongaerts adds, “The difference between UV exposure and CRISPR [as gene-editing methods], everybody understands the regulations don’t make sense. How do you, with a positive message, make sure everyone gets it?” All the panelists agree that building trust is key.
The “trust us, we’re scientists” approach doesn’t work because people don’t understand the technology, according to Gammack. “I would fault all the synbio community,” says Kirk. “We look at polling data on GMO attitudes, I thought healthcare would be the first area [accepted]. In terms of polling, people have the greatest acceptance to insect disease vectors,” he says, citing Intrexon’s Oxitec and their GM mosquito as an example.
The messaging, particularly around GM and especially here in Europe, is a minefield. “From our perspective, we need to be mindful of potential roadblocks,” says Lin, “GM in food is the most difficult to grapple with. Part of the process is creating awareness of what the food process looks like.” Transparency and openness about the technology is a major factor in getting this technology to market. Monsanto’s Flavr Savr tomato disaster is still fresh in people’s minds. Public acceptance to this technology is a must before the market can be broken into reliably.
“We need to understand emotions and backgrounds of people we talk to, to link our advancements to the incentives they care about. We should not over-hype, because if you can be critical and open about it, people will trust you,” says Bongaerts.
