- Open Access
Authentic teaching and learning through synthetic biology
© Kuldell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007
Received: 26 July 2007
Accepted: 27 December 2007
Published: 27 December 2007
Synthetic biology is an emerging engineering discipline that, if successful, will allow well-characterized biological components to be predictably and reliably built into robust organisms that achieve specific functions. Fledgling efforts to design and implement a synthetic biology curriculum for undergraduate students have shown that the co-development of this emerging discipline and its future practitioners does not undermine learning. Rather it can serve as the lynchpin of a synthetic biology curriculum. Here I describe educational goals uniquely served by synthetic biology teaching, detail ongoing curricula development efforts at MIT, and specify particular aspects of the emerging field that must develop rapidly in order to best train the next generation of synthetic biologists.
Teaching opportunities and challenges specific to synthetic biology
"Plant a carrot get a carrot, not a Brussels sprout" sings a musical theater character in The Fantasticks , aptly contrasting the predictability of gardening over childrearing. Map this idea to education and it seems teaching more closely resembles horticulture than parenting. Traditional metrics and standards around education often restrict educators to fixed lesson plans and syllabi, many of which have not changed since teachers were students themselves. Such preset teaching agendas enable students to achieve predictable, measurable learning outcomes and provide a framework to till a uniform garden of carrots (or geneticists or physicists or computer programmers). This educational framework, however, leaves little to no room for students to wrestle with the flexible thinking and uncertainty that characterize true discovery. It minimally connects information at the boundaries of traditional disciplines. An alternative teaching model establishes collaboration between teacher and student, providing a more student-centered learning experience than traditional didactic or Socratic methods. Though the measurement tools for this kind of collaborative learning are blunt, it remains clear that an effective and lasting education must inspire student innovation, creativity, and confidence giving rise to a garden full of individuals who are independent, skillful and responsible thinkers.
Synthetic biology is particularly well suited to collaborative and integrated learning but it should not be automatically lumped with all "interdisciplinary" approaches to problem solving. The catch-phrase "interdisciplinary" has grown popular in both education and research [2–7]. Reductionist approaches to understanding that tease systems apart are currently less fashionable than integrative efforts that draw from traditionally distinct specialties to more fully describe the whole. However, despite seeming inherently interdisciplinary, synthetic biology is, in fact, not. It does not simply put biologists and engineers in adjoining offices and wait to see what fireworks erupt at the water cooler. Instead, synthetic biology is a distinct discipline that requires its practitioners to work in ways remarkably different from the work that defines any traditional niche. Biologists who come to synthetic biology must manage complexity, rather than describe and celebrate it. Engineers must build using material under evolutionary pressures. Students who enter synthetic biology perceive the promise and limitations of the emerging discipline and because they have yet to categorize themselves as either "engineer" or "scientist," these students do not see the need to collaborate as much as they see the need to parse out the problems themselves and then systematically develop the skills to solve them.
An equally relevant pillar of synthetic biology education is its demand for awareness of real world dynamics. There is already good evidence that emotional, political and economic pressures as well as technical achievements will guide the development of synthetic biology [8–10]. As students become active members of the synthetic biology community they will be navigating both inside and outside the Ivory Towers. Consequently they will need an awareness of the public mindset, articulate answers to questions of misapplication and mistakes, and a persuasive approach to marshal support for their inventions. Vocabulary and techniques for social engineering can be taught as extensions of current persuasive writing and public speaking initiatives, and as with the synthetic biology efforts described below, integrated into problem-based learning frameworks. The stakes and rhetoric around synthetic biology are high, and educational efforts that fail to equip students for this aspect of the emerging discipline are unsound.
The newness of synthetic biology makes "typical" instruction nearly impossible. For example, how can a teacher properly assess "mastery of subject matter" when the foundational framework and professional competencies of the field have yet to be determined? Effective communication skills and sophisticated reasoning may distinguish experts from novices  and so might be considered appropriate readouts for accomplishment, but the measures for success in these areas are imprecise and difficult to apply . Nevertheless, several programmatic educational efforts are underway that powerfully illuminate the promise of synthetic biology. All are simultaneously hampered and energized by the newness of the field. All aspire to teach great literature while the state of the art is a few rhymed couplets .
Synthetic Biology 101
Audiences who have requested programmatic material for synthetic biology education include iGEM participants (see below), college and university biological engineers, grade school teachers, computer scientists, policy makers, and members of existing scientific and engineering communities. All have reasons and interest in making biology easier to engineer, but there can be no single template suitable for teaching such diverse audiences. Nevertheless, a core curriculum around synthetic biology can be described. It will include but not be limited to the following learning goals:
1. Students will design biological systems in skillful and responsible ways
There is a lot embedded in this goal. Primarily it is intended to specify the engineering equivalent of scientific, hypothesis-driven research. It can be loosely translated as: why should I build it and how? Students must wisely choose the best technology to solve a given problem and should know that synthetic biology will not always be the answer.
2. Students will design, specify and whenever possible implement their design
When they learn by building, students will pinpoint stumbling blocks to the predictable engineering of biology and some may take on the task of solving them. For example, computer-aided design of biology resembles that of the automobile industry decades ago when cars were slammed into walls to gather safety data about head-on collisions. Short of building a biological system, it is difficult to anticipate its performance.
3. Students will conscientiously use materials
Knowing that the natural world can be intentionally changed in major ways, students must identify for themselves what is worth changing. The synthesis of destructive agents should never be the desired outcome.
4. Students will define the values, culture, safety practices, and organizational community of the field
With synthetic biology still in its adolescence, community definition and building must be an explicit goal and students must feel empowered to meet it.
Pilot and ongoing educational efforts
Practically speaking, how can these educational goals be met? There is no single source or textbook to describe synthetic biology; consequently, new learners rely on a variety of sources for their introductory and foundational information. Complete newcomers may find relevant information in websites [14–17], blogs [18, 19], lay press articles [20, 21] and meeting reports [22–25]. With some basic understanding of biology and engineering, learners can tap into the primary literature, including some of the seminal papers [26, 27]. The initiated can also learn from Campbell and Heyer, who nobly include a chapter on synthetic biology in their college-level textbook . Spanning the divide between novices and traditional students are outreach efforts such as the adventures of Systems Sally, Device Dude and Buddy in comics  and animations . These communicate foundational ideas in accessible and entertaining formats.
For experiential learning, the summer-long International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition is a model [31, 32]. In it, synthetic biology is practiced by teams of students affiliated with colleges and universities around the world. The iGEM competition has grown rapidly, from 13 participating teams in 2004 to 55 teams representing more than a dozen countries in 2007. Genetic parts from the Registry of Standard Biological Parts are mailed to participating teams who then try to build novel genetically-encoded systems. Deeply discounted DNA synthesis is available to teams who desire parts not found at the Registry. In the spirit of open source biology, the iGEM coordinators have produced educational materials that are freely available (including podcasts and presentations from "teach the teachers" workshops)  and have further required that participating teams document their projects on a public wiki. Some remarkable achievements have been realized through the work of iGEM teams, including a bacteria-based photography system and bacteria that produce pleasantly fragrant compounds depending on the strain's growth state . The former project was published in a peer-reviewed journal  and the iGEM students themselves presented the latter at the 2007 annual meeting of the Institute for Biological Engineering .
Several formal classes in synthetic biology are under various stages of development at colleges and universities around the US, including Brown, Davidson, Harvard, MIT and UC-Berkeley [37–41]. I team-teach a sophomore level laboratory subject at MIT called Laboratory Fundamentals of Biological Engineering . Drew Endy and I draw teaching material for this course from ongoing efforts in synthetic biology. For example we teach a genome engineering unit drawn from T7.1, the successful redesign of the T7 bacteriophage genome. T7.1 is an example of genetic "refactoring," that is an engineered surrogate genome rewritten to maintain biological function while also being easier to study and extend . Our students use a filamentous phage (M13) as genetic substrate to manipulate with traditional molecular tools. They also specify a "clean" genome free from overlapping reading frames that could be more useful for building batteries and electrochromic devices [44, 45]. Finally, students consider modifications to the genome of the bacterial host ("chassis design"), evaluating performance of the natural and modified phage on hosts with natural and minimal genomes . These lessons distinguish subtle and wholesale changes to nature and students struggle with the benefits and uncertainties of each approach. Intrinsic to this study are foundational engineering ideas such as modularity and standardization, and students describe their experimental work not in terms of data collected but rather as an example that moves the whole field of synthetic biology forward. Moreover, their work is "actionable" since the best designs for the bacteriophage genome are synthesized and then tested by the students in the lab within the timeframe of a one-semester class . Finally, the curriculum inspires some robust discussions within the class and among the faculty around biosafety and security, for example what will happen when sophomore students a few years from now tackle gene therapy by refactoring a lentivirus rather than a bacteriophage?
The "ah-ha" factor associated with both the M13 redesign and the bacterial photography series of experiments is particularly gratifying to both students and instructors. The systems themselves are charismatic and relevant to future biological applications since light is minimally disruptive to most cells and phage is currently used in nanotechnology . The student's experiments model the integrative nature of synthetic biology, with expressions of genetic logic, information processing, abstraction, and parts optimization. What they lack, however, is the predictability seen in exemplary curricula. We've seen many of the student's M13 redesigns fail to make functional phage. We've seen many of the student's bacterial photographs fail for reasons that cannot be explained. Additionally both the M13 redesign template and the bacterial photography system need standardization of their genetic parts to exemplify a true biological engineering effort. As a patch, we ask our students to directly address these limitations in their writing assignments, requiring they self-identify as synthetic biologists and present their viewpoints and solutions as stakeholders .
Lessons learned from teaching synthetic biology
encourage students to precisely and carefully articulate their views
require students to self-identify as a member of the synthetic biology community. As stakeholders, they can test their comfort with the advantages and risks, practice and evaluate the rhetoric around thorny issues.
raise the thorny issues. Sweeping under the rug all questions of security, safety, dual-use, and ownership is a disservice to all. The current crop of students will almost certainly face a biological threat in their lifetimes, and we will be relying on them to react sensibly and constructively. Teachers may themselves have to move outside their comfort area of expertise to address such questions. This, too, is a good outcome.
conflate synthetic biology with existing disciplines such as genetic engineering and nanotechnology. Without question, there is overlap, sometimes profound overlap, making clear definitions impossible, but to teach a "synthetic biology lab" which moves a luciferase gene into E. coli is incorrect. Teach PCR, teach bacterial transformation, but teach them as tools that are common and available, not as the core of synthetic biology.
shy away from criticizing the fledgling efforts that synthetic biology has itself celebrated. The Registry is great but far from perfect. Ask students to make it better. The production of artemisinin has tremendous promise but is a hybrid effort that resembles but doesn't exemplify the engineering of biology. Confirm that students see the distinction and what they would implement as v2.0.
overstate what synthetic biology may do or anticipate that every garage will be filled with designer biology. Nature is a harsh critic, so while the widespread availability of biological components will surely give rise to a cadre of volunteer debuggers and verifiers, it's reasonable to think that their failure rate will overwhelmingly exceed their successes, at least in the near term.
Synthetic biology, with its inclusive content and uncertain outcome, can be used to educate the skilled and responsible thinkers we hope to produce. The newness of the terrain engages students as stakeholders who learn that their viewpoints matter and that their ideas are actionable. Teaching synthetic biology is hampered by the limited number of robust systems that can be converted to teaching materials and by the dearth of standardization and characterization in existing synthetic biology exemplars. Nonetheless, it's today's students who can contribute to the growth of the field and who will soon become practitioners poised to realize the positive outcomes for biology by design.
The author is particularly grateful for her wonderful teaching colleagues who were instrumental in developing and implementing the curricula described here. In particular, Drew Endy, Reshma Shetty and Neal Lerner have been wonderful teaching partners. MIT's Biological Engineering undergraduates and its Synthetic Biology Working Group have also participated wholeheartedly in many aspects of this work. Essential technical guidance by Jeff Tabor, Aaron Chevalier and Heather Keller made the bacterial photography module a success. Sean Aidan Clarke and Laure-Anne Ventouras assisted in teaching the M13 module. The author also gratefully acknowledges thoughtful feedback from Tucker Crum and Neal Lerner on earlier versions of this manuscript. In addition to constant support from her department, the author was awarded curricular development grants from MIT's Alumni Funds for Excellence in Education and the d'Arbeloff Fund for Excellence in Education to support the development of the teaching materials.
- The Fantasticks Book by Tom Jones. Lyrics by Tom Jones. Music by Harvey Schmidt. Based on Les Romanesques by Edmond Rostand. Opened 5/3/1960. Google Scholar
- Committee on the Engineer of 2020, Phase II, Committee on Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering In Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. The National Academies Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, National Research Council In BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. The National Academies Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- Smith SM: Reforming undergrad biology curriculum. Science 2002, 298: 747. 10.1126/science.298.5594.747bView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gross LJ: Interdisciplinarity and the undergraduate biology curriculum: finding a balance. Cell Biol Educ 2004, 3: 85-87. 10.1187/cbe.04-03-0040View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cech TR, Rubin GM: Nurturing interdisciplinary research. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 2004, 11: 1166-1169. 10.1038/nsmb1204-1166View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ares M Jr: Interdisciplinary research and the undergraduate biology student. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 2004, 11: 1170-1172. 10.1038/nsmb1204-1170View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- SB2.0 Declaration[http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/32982]
- Rai A, Boyle J: Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons. PLoS Biol 2007,5(3):e58. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Henkel J, Maurer SM: The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology 2007, 3: 117. 10.1038/msb4100161View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, National Research Council In How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press; 2000.Google Scholar
- Gardner HowardE: Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books; 2000.Google Scholar
- Ilulissat Statement2007. [http://www.kavlifoundation.org/news/pr_062507.html]
- BioBricks Foundation[http://www.biobricks.org/]
- Seven Stones[http://blog-msb.embo.org/blog/]
- Rob Carlson's blog[http://synthesis.typepad.com/]
- Morton O: Life, Reinvented. Wired 2005., (13.01): [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/mit.html]
- Tucker JB, Zilinskas RA: The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology. The New Atlantis 2006, 12: 25-45. [http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/12/tuckerzilinskas.htm]Google Scholar
- Malcolm Campbell A: Meeting Report: Synthetic Biology Jamboree for Undergraduates. Cell Biol Educ 2005, 4: 19-23. 10.1187/cbe.04-11-0047View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gardner TS, Cantor CR, Collins JJ: Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature 2000, 403: 339-342. 10.1038/35002131View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Elowitz MB, Leibler S: A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 2000, 403: 335-338. 10.1038/35002125View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Malcolm Campbell A, Heyer LaurieJ: Discovering Genomics, Proteomics and Bioinformatics Benjamin Cummings. 2007.Google Scholar
- COMIC 1. Adventures in Synthetic Biology. Story by Drew Endy, Isadora Deese & The MIT Synthetic Biology Working Group Art by Chuck Wadey Nature 2005, 438: 449-453. [http://www.nature.com/nature/comics/syntheticbiologycomic/index.html] 10.1038/nature04342
- BioBuilder animations in progress. Story by Rebecca Adams, Isadora Deese, Drew Endy, Natalie Kuldell. Art and animations by Animated Storyboards[http://www.biobuilder.org]
- iGEM 2006[http://www.igem2006.com/index.htm]
- iGEM 2007[http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Main_Page]
- Teaching resources for iGEM[http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Podcasts]
- Eau d'coli team wiki , in press.http://openwetware.org/wiki/IGEM:MIT/2006/Blurb
- Levskaya A, Chevalier AA, Tabor JJ, Simpson ZB, Lavery LA, Levy M, Davidson EA, Scouras A, Ellington AD, Marcotte EM, Voigt CA: Synthetic biology: engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature 2005, 438: 441-442. 10.1038/nature04405View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- IBE General Meeting 2006[http://www.ibe.org/meetings/2007/index.cgi]
- Brown University class in Synthetic Biological Systems[http://openwetware.org/wiki/Brown_Synthetic_Biology]
- Davidson College class called Reengineering Life: Synthetic Biology Seminar[http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/synthetic/synthetic_seminar.html#schedule]
- Harvard Medical School nanocourse in Synthetic Biology: Cellular and Molecular Engineering[http://idb.med.harvard.edu/content/view/310/27/]
- MIT lab class 20.109(F07) Laboratory Fundamentals of Biological Engineering[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109(F07)]
- UC Berkeley class in Implications and Applications of Synthetic Biology[http://openwetware.org/wiki/Synbio_2007]
- 20.109(F07): Module 1/Genome Engineering[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109(F07):Module_1]
- Chan LY, Kosuri S, Endy D: Refactoring bacteriophage T7. Mol Syst Biol 2005, 1: 2005.0018. 10.1038/msb4100025View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nam KT, Kim DW, Yoo PJ, Chiang CY, Meethong N, Hammond PT, Chiang YM, Belcher AM: Virus-enabled synthesis and assembly of nanowires for lithium ion battery electrodes. Science 2006, 312: 885-888. 10.1126/science.1122716View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 20.109(F07): phage nanowire deposition to ITO patterned slide[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109%28F07%29:_Phage_by_design%2C_pt2]
- Posfai G, Plunkett G 3rd, Feher T, Frisch D, Keil GM, Umenhoffer K, Kolisnychenko V, Stahl B, Sharma SS, de Arruda M, Burland V, Harcum SW, Blattner FR: Emergent properties of reduced-genome Escherichia coli. Science 2006, 312: 1044-1046. 10.1126/science.1126439View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 20.109(F07): Module 3/Biomaterials Engineering[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109_%28F07%29:_Phage_by_design]
- BE.109: Systems engineering[http://openwetware.org/wiki/BE.109:Systems_engineering]
- Petty NK, Evans TJ, Fineran PC, Salmond GP: Biotechnological exploitation of bacteriophage research. Trends Biotechnol 2007,25(1):7-15. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.11.003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 20.109(F07): Genome engineering assessment[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.109%28F07%29:_Genome_engineering_assessment]
- 20.20: Introduction to biological engineering design[http://openwetware.org/wiki/20.20]
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.