Creation by Adam Rutherford

Published by Current (Penguin) on June 13, 2013

Creation is brief and not overly academic, which is the way I like my science books. Part One provides an overview of current scientific thought about the origin of life. Part Two (to me, the more interesting part), subtitled "The Future of Life," discusses the creation of new, human-engineered life forms, a branch of science broadly known as synthetic biology.

Creation begins with a brief history of biological science as it pertains to the discovery of cells as the basic component of living things. Cell theory and Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection both speak to the fundamental truth that "life is the adapted continuation of what came before." Does this mean that all life -- spiders and turnips and bacteria -- can be traced to a common origin, even to a single cell? To answer to that question, Adam Rutherford discusses the history of genetics, explains how DNA works, and argues that the merger of two single cell organisms (an archaea swallowing a bacteria) began the creation of complex life two billion years ago. Rutherford proffers the "left-handed" nature of the proteins that make up life as forceful evidence that "life is of a single origin." That originating entity, the Last Universal Common Ancestor (nicknamed "Luca"), is where you, as a living being, began, existing in your present form "via a colossal series of iterations." But if Luca started it all, how was Luca created?

The question takes Rutherford back 4.5 billion years, to the Earth's creation. The influence of geology on biology takes up a good chunk of the ensuing narrative, culminating in a dissection (and rejection) of Darwin's concept of a "primordial soup" as the origin of life. This leads to an even more fundamental question: "What is life?" Rutherford argues that life is not just the checklist of characteristics (like movement and reproduction) that we learned in school. His alternative answer (life is something that is capable of evolving) strikes me as just another characteristic, as do the additional "behaviors" of life (such as "the continual maintenance of energy imbalance" or "a process that stops your molecules from decaying") that Rutherford identifies, but that's probably a semantic issue. In any event, Rutherford next explores (and largely rejects) the possibility that life has an extraterrestrial origin. All of this leads Rutherford to research suggesting that Luca, unlike its progeny, may not have been a membrane-bound cell at all, but existed "inside the rocky shell" of alkaline underwater vents. I think I'll have to wait for the movie before I can grasp that picture.

So much of part one seemed like a refresher in freshman biology that a more sophisticated audience will probably decry Rutherford's book as unworthy of attention. It's clearly geared to people (like me) who don't have a doctorate in biochemistry. And while some of part one was familiar, enough was new (to me) to keep the discussion interesting. In that regard, Rutherford's lively writing style is a plus.

Still, I was more engaged by part two, which introduces a goat that produces spider silk in its milk (an example of a transgenic organism), synthetic yeast cells that leak a relatively clean version of diesel fuel, and vitamin-enhanced rice (modified with genes from a daffodil). These examples of genetic engineering are the early efforts of synthetic biology, the means by which scientists hope to create "new life forms whose circuitry and programming is clear, simple, and, crucially, built not for survival but for purpose." DNA might be programmed, for instance, to make a protein that kills cancer cells while leaving noncancerous cells untouched. For diabetics, a "synthetic cellular circuit" might produce insulin as the body needs it.

While the potential applications of synthetic biology are among the most interesting discussions in Creation, the least interesting are Rutherford's observations about the difficulty of applying intellectual property laws (patents) to living organisms. The discussion doesn't begin to capture the complexity of the issues involved. On the other hand, the policy debates stimulated by synthetic biology are fascinating, even if Rutherford doesn't quite do them justice. For instance, Rutherford's examination of the controversy surrounding genetically modified food products (which he tends to characterize as PR-driven hysteria) is too dismissive to be useful.

Rutherford's conclusion about the perils of synthetic biology, which amounts to "don't stand in the way of progress," is unduly optimistic given his recognition in an earlier chapter that "progress" -- as in the case of thalidomide -- can have devastating consequences. I can't agree with Rutherford that it is always wrong to "fixate on a threat" and I'm confident that the thalidomide debacle effectively refutes his suggestion that "market forces" can provide effective scrutiny of new technologies. He also seems to suggest that regulation is only appropriate after the damage has been done (as was the case with thalidomide) rather than "preemptively in a way that could prohibit progress." If prohibiting progress means thwarting catastrophe, I can't agree that preemptive regulation is undesirable. If, as Rutherford acknowledges, "synthetic biology is moving at such a fast pace that many scientists are bewildered by its progress," slowing that pace with more regulatory oversight might be the correct response.

These are not easy issues and, to be fair, I'm oversimplifying Rutherford's position, but Rutherford oversimplifies a serious debate. I appreciated his recognition that the science he lauds can be used to create weapons of bioterror, but I was only mildly comforted by his assurance that it would be very difficult for terrorists to create a pandemic by weaponizing a flu strain. At one point it would have been thought difficult to fly hijacked jets into the World Trade Center, but that didn't stop it from happening. In any event, I'm more concerned about the unforeseen consequences of developing new life forms than the potential consequences that scientists are able to recognize and minimize. While I sympathize and largely agree with the view that the potential benefits of synthetic biology (including the eradication of certain diseases and even of famine) will often outweigh its risks, I wonder if there is reason to tread more carefully, and with greater oversight, than Rutherford would like.

Kudos to Rutherford, however, for calling attention to those issues. I might not entirely agree with his policy analyses, but I'm not denying Creation's value. It's readable, informative, and stimulating, and it contributes to a debate that needs to be robust.

RECOMMENDED