Several points have been raised with me concerning my recent posting ("The
Bioeconomy").1. I used "biochemical" and "biogenetic" interchangeably. I should have used the latter term only because we already have a well-established biochemical industry (fermentation of alcohol, many organic derivatives from fossil fuels, the pharmaceutical industry, etc). Yes, my posting referred specifically to biogenetic methods. I foresee the possibility (nay, probability) that mini-factories, exposed to sunlight on almost anywhere on the earth's surface, will be able to produce a rich variety of organic materials that will have most of the properties of expensively-produced metals. I mentioned that spiders can spin silk which is many times stronger than steel wire of the same thickness. The same spiders can also switch production immediately to silk which is several times more elastic than rubber. Some spiders can spin up to six sorts of silk with entirely different properties. It is possible that only a relatively small number of genes (within artificial DNA) would be necessary for the production of, say, wire or sheet material. It is also possible to envisage that further genes could actually fashion the material into the shape of the precise product required. Unlike some wonder technologies (e.g. fusion) where the physical parameters and practicalities of the techniques are as yet unknown, we already know that biogenetic production is feasible due to hundreds of millions of years of natural evolution. 2. Time scale. It has been suggested that the time-scale for biogenetic production is impossibly long. To answer this, I suggest that the technology should be considered in three stages. (a) knowledge of the biochemical pathways from the direct energy of sunlight into the energising of DNA division; (b) knowledge of precisely what materials (protein moelcules) are produced by what particular genes, either singly or in combination; (c) the shaping of the materials into the precise product. My response: (a) almost all of this has already been fully researched; (b) particular genes and their properties are now being identified and researched at a very rapid rate indeed -- more than sufficient for the production of basic materials will be known well within the next 20 years; (c) the initial production of materials in bulk form will also be possible within 20 years, thus beginning the substitution of metallic-based materials using present type of industrial methods, followed then by the genetic control of precise products thus enabling the biogenetic "mini-factories" to be started within about 20 years (initially for products of simple form -- and then long into the indefinite future for increasingly complex products). 3. It has been pointed out that there are more than sufficient hydrocarbon fuels available for any number of the world's population when the present supply of oil and natural gas gives out. True. There are deep mined coal, tar sands and methane hydrates in abundance -- altogether at least 1,000 times more fuel than is now in conventional reserves. But there are two difficulties here: (a) the electrical energy and organic material derivatives from these sources will be very expensive indeed -- at least several times more than present-day oil and gas; (b) the production methods for extracting these fuels will be environmentally damaging on a scale far exceeding present methods, will vastly increase CO2 production (possibly accelerating global warming) and (particularly in the case of methane hydrates) probably dangerous, and even catastrophic. 4. Technological optimism. Here, a little biography is in order. In my younger years (two professions ago), as an industrial chemist, I was in charge of production conditions for two factories [Courtaulds, at Coventry and Preston] making rayon and tyrecord and, later, quality control of all types of production within a tractor factory [Massey-Ferguson, at Coventry] which, at that time, made more tractors per day than any other factory in the world [approx 2,500]). As far as technology is concerned, I am as practical person as you could find. Believe me, I am very far from being the sort of goggle-eyed reader of popular discovery-type magazines with utopian visions of the future. 5. My case essentially depends on a more-or-less intuitive belief that the world population (even if it stabilises soon) cannot possibly be sustained using present industrial methods depending on fossil fuels if everyone is to have the typical way of life presently "enjoyed" by those of us in western nations. In the process of getting there we would probably destroy every last remnant of the natural environment as well as probably endangering the overall physico-chemical equilibrium of the earth. As far as world population is concerned, it is highly likely that it will start to decline, and possibly quite steeply, in about 30-40 years, so we do not need to worry overmuch about this (except to excoriate Bush's withdrawal of funds to the UN Family projects). Even with a reduced world population, the essential point is: do we continue with highly expensive energy production via additional fossil fuel resources when there will be the alternative of "clean" and very cheap production of materials via biogenetic means (which, as I have suggested, could be located in all desirable human habitats). Keith Hudson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
