On the Future of Species by Adrian Woolfson review – are we on the verge of creating synthetic life? | Science and nature books
The prophet Ezekiel once claimed to have seen four beasts emerging from a burning cloud, “gleaming like the color of burnished brass.” Each had wings and four faces: that of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. Likewise, a creature called Buraq, something between a mule and a donkey with wings and a human face, is said to have carried the Prophet Muhammad on his travels; while the ancient Greeks gave us the centaur, the mythical man-horse hybrid recently revived by JK Rowling in the Harry Potter books.
“The urge to mix the anatomical features of other species with those of humans seems to be ingrained in our imagination,” notes Adrian Woolfson in his intriguing and disturbing analysis of a biological revolution that he believes is about to sweep the planet. Very soon, we will not only imagine imaginary animals, we will transform them into biological reality.
According to this prediction, species shaped by billions of years of natural selection will soon have to share their world with artificial versions designed and constructed by humans, with dramatic consequences. “Synthetic species could be harnessed to produce biofuels, drugs, biosensors, drought-resistant crops, and countless other innovations,” he writes. “We can grow houses rather than build them. »
It’s science fiction. Nonetheless, the London-born, Oxbridge-educated Woolfson – founder of the San Diego genetics company Genyro and author of two previous popular science books – is adamant that the nature of life on Earth is about to transform. He sees his book as a wake-up call. We are facing “a second Genesis” that could bring great benefits but also have profoundly dark and disturbing consequences.
So what has happened in recent years to bring us to the brink of such a revolution? How exactly will this manifest? And how can we maximize the benefits and minimize the dangers?
In response to the first question, Woolfson cites two key inventions. The first involves technologies, such as the Sidewinder method developed at Caltech, capable of constructing DNA fragments of “unprecedented size and complexity, quickly and efficiently.” Entire genomes can now be synthesized in record time. The second comes from artificial intelligence, which has helped scientists solve previously intractable scientific problems, particularly those involving the shape of proteins.
Proteins are the building blocks of life. They make up our hair, bones, skin and muscles and are made up of folded sequences of amino acids. Scientists knew how to create one-dimensional chains, but were unable to predict how the resulting chains of amino acids would fold to form three-dimensional proteins, whose shape would determine their function. This significantly limited their ability to generate new proteins.
Then, in 2020, AlphaFold2, leveraging neural network technology also used in systems like ChatGPT, cracked the folding code. Complex protein structures can now be predicted with confidence, allowing us to create new ones for use in medicine or elsewhere.
And if we can make new proteins, we can also envision giving rise to new forms of life, writes Woolfson. “Biology is now on the verge of transitioning from a largely descriptive science to a generative science. In the future, we will not just catalog species, we will create them.”
It’s not hard to imagine that problems could arise when this happens. How will creatures shaped by evolution over eons exist in a world that also includes synthetic newcomers? Will these have the same legitimacy as natural species? Woolfson doesn’t think so, but warns that the distinction between natural and artificial life forms will become increasingly blurred.
There might also be opportunities to improve existing land creatures. We are the end product of the random forces of heredity, chance and natural selection – and we bear the scars. Take the human spine. “It is a design disaster,” writes Woolfson, who points out that it evolved in a quadruped and is hopelessly ill-adapted to an animal that walks on two legs. So could we now improve it? Why not? Life could be “guided toward unexplored landscapes, with entirely new properties that would reinvent how organisms function.”
Woolfson’s descriptions can become overly elaborate and laborious. He tends to exaggerate the impact of what is called second Genesis. But his arguments are compelling and his prose is generally clear and direct.
Of course, many aspects of the coming biological revolution seem far less rosy or comforting, and Woolfson lists these pitfalls as well. Bioterrorists could easily amass arsenals of human-derived pathogens. As benchtop DNA synthesizers and AI tools become more accessible, it will become increasingly difficult to track what is being created and by whom.
Messing with bacteriophages – viruses that infect bacteria – could inadvertently destabilize the ocean carbon cycle and accelerate climate change. And then there are the ethical consequences of humans increasingly tinkering with mammalian genomes – for example, to make mice more human and therefore better models on which to test drugs. But where to stop? Could we achieve half-human hybrids worthy of Ezekiel?
Woolfson doesn’t think so and insists that we are obliged to move forward. Although he supports banning artificial babies and orphaned humans, he argues that a moratorium on AI-based genomic research simply would not work, when the benefits to humanity, the planet and the animal kingdom are simply too great to consider curbing science. In this, he is probably too complacent in the face of the dangers that await him. The risks of unintended consequences seem very real.
