Synthetic Biology

NEWS

NATURE|Vol 458|16 April 2009

A synthetic-biology reality check

818

© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

V. STEGER/SPL

Devices is reported to be ‘quietly Launched with some fanfare in 2004, shutting down’ strikes me as very Codon Devices of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was touted as a flagship odd,” says Steve Aldrich, president of for the industrial applications of synBio Economic Research Associates in thetic biology, a nascent discipline Cambridge, Massachusetts. “I would that applies engineering approaches have thought that the controlling venture investors would be anxious to the molecular design of biological to reassure public markets, which systems. In late March, however, the might interpret the abandonment company closed its doors. of such a high-profile start-up as a “I’m personally disappointed,” says Codon co-founder George Church negative judgement on the idea that of Harvard University, who works on we would be able to rapidly design, gene sequencing and synthesis techengineer and commercialize biologinology. “It seemed like an opportunity cal applications anytime soon.” to bring a lot of money into a field that Drug companies are keen to use synthetic biology to improve drug had a lot of promise and I don’t think development, according to Richard that’s hype; I just think that’s a matter of time.” Kitney of Imperial College London’s Codon Devices was backed by a centre for synthetic biology, and this range of top-drawer venture capitalraises the question of why the company didn’t find a larger concern to ists. The scientific founders, alongside Church, were Drew Endy, then of the buy it up. Massachusetts Institute of TechnolKhosla, Hunkapiller, Endy and ogy (MIT) in Cambridge, who was The fab four: clockwise, from top left, Drew Endy, Jay Keasling, Jacobson did not respond to requests working on the development of small, George Church and Joseph Jacobson. to comment for this piece. But other reusable genetic components known as scientists say that synthetic biology has BioBricks; Jay Keasling of the University of Cali- Endy’s, points to another problem with com- a bright future that need not hinge on the fate fornia, Berkeley, who engineers metabolic path- bining the two approaches: fears about confi- of a single firm. “This is a young, exciting and ways; and Joseph Jacobson of MIT’s Media Lab, dentiality. “Inevitably, when Codon partnered dynamic field, and this is one of the companies who works on creating molecular machinery. with, say, a company pursuing biofuels, any that tried to make it and failed in a pretty tough The company started out with a two-pronged other biofuels company was bound to feel environment,” says Sven Panke of the Swiss strategy: to provide synthetic genes and rea- uneasy about shipping designs for genes or Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. “It gents to order, and to partner with other firms genetic circuits off to Codon.” will take time; that’s what you would expect.” to develop synthetic-biology applications. Codon seemed to recognize the problems in Indeed, one of the most promising applicaBut having two different balls in play did not its approach. In March 2008, it received a cash tions of synthetic biology is thought to lie in work well. In the first of its two target markets infusion of $31 million from its existing inves- the development of better biofuels. In 2007, there were incumbent comtors, including such well-con- Church launched a separate synthetic-biology petitors — notably DNA 2.0 in “This is a young, nected figures as Vinod Khosla biofuels company, LS9, in South San Francisco, Menlo Park, California, Blue exciting and dynamic of Khosla Ventures in Menlo with backing from Khosla, among others. KhoHeron Biotechnology of BothPark and Michael Hunkapiller sla is also an investor in an earlier Keasling ell, Washington, and Geneart, field. It will take time; of Alloy Ventures in Palo Alto, start-up, Amyris Biotechnologies of Emerybased in Regensberg, Germany that’s what you would California. Three months later, ville, California, which has begun working on — for whom selling synthetic expect.” it said it would streamline its biofuels and is developing cheaper antimalarDNA was the core business. business and refocus on appli- ial drugs in partnership with the Paris-based “They tried to do two really hard things in cations rather than synthesis. The move may pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis and the same small company — to be a successful have come too late, says Church. “A lot of our the San Francisco-based non-profit Institute manufacturing and service company on the burn rate would be having a sales staff,” he for OneWorld Health. one hand, and to be a high-powered R&D com- explains. “Codon should have stuck with its These and other competing ventures may pany,” says John Mulligan, Blue Heron’s chief long-term plan”: to provide the “foundational have made life more difficult for Codon, which scientific officer. “It’s super-hard to combine in platform” for synthetic biology, as Intel pro- was recruiting biofuels partners. “You’ve got one small company those two pretty disparate vides a platform for computing. the combination of many more [start-ups] getcorporate cultures.” Still, some analysts are perplexed that ting into biofuels and many more players like Robert Carlson, a principal at Biodesic — Codon’s board hasn’t explained why the com- BP and Shell,” says Kitney. “That must have put an engineering and design company in Seattle, pany decided to pull the plug so suddenly. quite a lot of pressure on Codon Devices.” ■ Washington — and a former colleague of “The lack of explanation as to why Codon Erika Check Hayden and Heidi Ledford

S. OGDEN

V. STEGER/SPL

S. OGDEN/SPL

Is the abrupt closure of prominent player Codon Devices an omen for the field?