Pulse
15 Dec 2025
In 2022, biologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel created mouse embryo models without the need for fertilized eggs, embryos, or even a mouse. In what has been regarded as a world-first achievement, these scientists only used stem cells and a special incubator to produce synthetic embryos.
This breakthrough has led some commentators to speculate if the creation of ‘synthetic human embryos is on the horizon.
Already in 2021, scientists have succeeded in manipulating human pluripotent stem cells (cells that can turn into any cell) to self-aggregate in a Petri dish, mimicking a ‘blastocyst’. Researchers are using these blastoids to study early human development, particularly implantation processes.
These developments were made possible due to the advances of a fairly new field called synthetic biology. Synthetic biology is a multidisciplinary field of biotechnology which involves engineering genetic material or organisms such as viruses, bacteria, yeasts, plants and animals to have new characteristics.
Combining engineering principles and existing biotechnology techniques such as DNA sequencing and genome editing, scientists have attempted to modify existing organisms or create new ones. Synthetic biology has applications in medicine, pharmacology, agriculture and many other fields and industries.
According to one source, ‘the synthetic biology market could grow from about USD10 billion in 2021 to between USD37 billion and USD100 billion by 2030.’
Although synthetic biology is a new scientific endeavour, there are many parallels and precursors in the history of modern science.
For example, in the 19th century, chemists discovered how to synthesize compounds that had previously only existed in nature. In 1828, Friedrich Wohler synthesised an organic compound (urea) for the first time, from purely inorganic compounds.
There is currently no consensus among Christian theologians and ethicists on synthetic biology even if most are alert to its potential abuses and risks.
On the one hand, there are Christians who believe that synthetic biology is a positive development and that research in this area should be encouraged. These Christians generally have a favourable view of modern biotechnology and believe that its application must be understood in light of the divine command to rule over the earth (the dominium terrae of Genesis 1:28).
Theologians such as Ted Peters, Philip Hefner and Anne Foerst would regard the creation of synthetic biology as human beings fulfilling their given roles as created co-creators.
On the other hand, there are Christians who believe that creating synthetic organisms have crossed the red line, venturing into territory that properly belongs to God alone. They warn that while human beings are given the responsibility to ‘rule over the earth’, they should not ‘play God’ and overstep their creaturely boundaries by manipulating the biosphere.
While the Vatican has not issued an official statement of teaching on the subject, Catholic theologians and bishops have repeatedly warned that this new technology must be used with caution.
In 2010, the J. Craig Venter Institute first announced that it had successfully constructed the first self-replicating, synthetic bacteria. Responding to this news, Bishop Domenico Mogavero warned that this new form of life ‘is a potential time bomb, a dangerous double-edged sword for which it is impossible to imagine the consequences.’
The chairman of the Italian bishop’s legal affairs committee added that ‘Pretending to be God and parroting his power of creation is an enormous risk that can plunge men into barbarity.’
In a similar vein, the Church of Scotland, in its 2010 paper on synthetic biology raised the following questions, while recognising its potential:
And yet, for many, some nagging disquiet remains: in treating organisms as Lego-like constructs to be disassembled and reassembled at will, are we humans pushing the boundaries of manipulation of our environment too far? Do we fully appreciate the potential consequences of our actions in this area? Is the unregulated nature inherent in much of what is possible through synthetic biology an opportunity or problem?
These are pertinent questions that continue to be pressing today even as the technology undergirding synthetic biology advances.
An even larger question pertains to how synthetic biology shapes our understanding of nature. In treating biological organisms as sophisticated machines, synthetic biology presents and reinforces a reductionistic view of nature which may give credence to a theory of genetic determinism that is already prevalent in modern culture.
What are some potential risks posed by synthetic biology?
One possible major risk associated with synthetic biology is the effects it could have on the environment, especially the natural ecosystem. As the Church of Scotland statement explains, ‘Artificially synthesised organisms could have unpredictable and potentially damaging effects when released into the environment either intentionally or unintentionally.’
Scientists are trying to develop ‘safety locks’ – for example, by making the organisms dependent on artificial nutrients that are not found in nature – to prevent environmental hazards. However, it is very difficult to predict the behaviour and resilience of these novel, synthetically created organisms that are not found in nature.
Synthetic biology is a dual-use technology, which means that it can be employed for both the benefit and harm of humankind and society. For example, it can be used to create new biological weapons or to significantly alter and recreate extant ones such as the Spanish Flu virus. These re-engineered pathogens can be more deadly and difficult to detect.
In addition, nefarious actors could also use synthetic biology to re-engineer new forms of toxins, such as botulinum or ricin variants. They can be more stable and more difficult to detect by current security measures.
Given the rapid pace at which synthetic biology is developing across many different domains and industries, comprehensive regulation and laws be put in place to govern its research and use.
To be sure, the international community recognises the importance of regulation and governance.
In October 2014, during the 12th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 12) to the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), 194 countries unanimously agreed to urge nations to regulate synthetic biology. This was reinforced in COP 15, held in January 2025, which established a process of monitoring and assessing technological developments in synthetic engineering.
However, despite these efforts, laws governing synthetic biology are still patchy. An article published by a British International law firm Mishcon de Reya, opines that the SynBio sector
is currently governed by a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to biotechnology more broadly – as opposed to being addressed by a single piece of legislation.
As synthetic biology continues to evolve, it is imperative that the international community addresses associated risks and abuses through comprehensive regulation. For it is only through such active governance can the benefits of synthetic biology are realised without compromising human society and the ecosystem.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.