Scientists at the State University of New York at Stony Brook chemically synthesized and constructed the genome of the poliovirus using the genome sequence data that is freely accessible on the internet. Dr. Jeronimo Cello under the direction of Dr. Eckard Wimmer took about a year to synthesize short stretches (oligonucleotides) of one-third of the poliovirus genome and painstakingly pieced them together as one long segment. Frustrated with the slow pace, he called Integrated DNA Technologies, a Coralville, Iowa service company, for help. The company synthesized and pieced together the remaining two-thirds of the genome in about 2 months. Poliovirus has an RNA genome. Since RNA is unstable, Drs. Cello and Wimmer synthesized the genome in DNA and then converted it into RNA by enzymatic reaction. When injected into mice, the synthesized RNA acted pretty much like the poliovirus would normally do, causing paralysis and ultimately death in the mice. They published their work in Science Online (July 11, 2002). The scientists’ success was also blessed by the small polio genome, 7741 bases in all.

From a scientific point of view, the experiment is uncomplicated, innovative, and path defining. These are the attributes of what a brilliant scientific experiment should be. Drs. Cello and Wimmer are promptly honored with being the first individuals ever to have created life from scratch.

But scientists are shell-shocked by the revelation. A lot of them are still recollecting themselves over the newfound ability of what a human being can do. Among the deadly microbes, smallpox virus has 185,000 bases. Although it is far more complicated than the polio counterpart, it is conceivable that scientists would eventually create the smallpox virus from chemical compounds and make the issue of eradication moot.

Among other currently raging scientific and ethical debates, this report propagates further legitimate debate. The debate shouldn’t be about why scientists did the work or why Science published the recipe. The debate should center on how to cope with the “other” side of natural consequences of scientific discoveries. As with nuclear physics to atomic bombs, scientific progress feeds on its own. At points in time, scientists will be burdened by how much they know and how freely available this knowledge should be.

(Discovery Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 9, p3, 2002)