Check back every week for the Monday Morning Column.

Last month I had several interesting conversations with Mike Mendez, co-founder and CTO of Pareto Biotechnologies, at the SynBioBeta Cultured Food Forum (where the industry plotted how to best take over the world, mwuahaha…). In addition to discussing what technologies and breakthroughs would differentiate synthetic biology from genetic engineering technologies that came before, we talked about a misconception that will inevitably drag on the adoption of synthetic biology products by consumers. I can say this confidently by drawing on (1) examples related to biotech crops and (2) the concerns already being voiced by consumer groups. What could be done to address this misconception?

If it doesn't exist in nature...

While the controversy over engineering biology has grown, so, too, has the attention given to the processes used to manufacture everyday products. This has framed many debates over food production as black and white; often characterized as genetically modified versus organic. That simplifies the debate, but it also removes valuable information from each side's argument, which damages the consumer's ability to make an educated decision about the issues raised.

Unfortunately, synthetic biology products will very likely get tangled in the same simplified debate. In fact, consumer groups are already calling ingredients derived from synthetic biology processes "fake solutions" for tackling sustainability concerns and questioning whether or not such ingredients can be called "natural".

Once again, the process is forced upon consumers as the most important factor they need to consider when making purchasing decisions. Forget the advantages and value of the process; or the fact that the ingredients produced are equivalent to, exactly the same as, or even enhanced versions of the less sustainable ingredients they are replacing; or that genetic material is completely removed from the final product; or even the disadvantages. Consumers are simply told that biotechnology is scary, while nature is friendly and inviting. They're also reminded about the complexity of nature, and, if something doesn't exist in nature, then it shouldn't be created at all.

Although not stated outright, the misconception that nature is complex, and therefore perfect, is something that needs to be guided back to the facts.

Complexity doesn't equal perfection

Whether your definition of "nature" includes solely living things or extends to the physical world and the processes that support it, nature is extremely complex. Earth hosts an estimated 8.7 million species. Your belly button alone hosts 1,458 of those. Life can be found in the deepest depths of the ocean, at the highest mountain peaks, in damp jungles, and brutally dry deserts. The numerous checks and balances of the natural world, whether controlling the water cycle, the sequestration of carbon, or the emergence of deep sea microbes when humans leak petroleum into the ocean (oops), are both beautiful and awesome. Consider that there have been five mass extinctions on Earth in the last 540 million years in which at least half of its animal species were swiped away, yet the robustness and complexity of the natural world has ensured its recovery each time.

Complexity is omnipresent in nature, but that shouldn't be confused with perfection. Take, for instance, the process of photosynthesis. We're working hard to recreate it for our own purposes, but despite the fact that plants can grow through cracks in the sidewalk (seemingly fed on cigarette buds and car exhaust), that has proven pretty difficult. However, the complexity of photosynthesis doesn't mean the process is perfect.

While the theoretical maximum for solar energy conversion in plants is about 11%, plants average only 3%-6% efficiency. Excess energy that cannot be used during photosynthesis is released in two additional processes in the form of heat or chlorophyll fluorescence. In fact, these three processes are in energetic competition with one another, which limits the ability of each to approach its theoretical peak efficiency. So, despite the wild success of photosynthesis in the natural world and its complexity, it's far from perfect.

Solutions from synthetic biology

The arrival and adoption of any new technology is greeted with a mix of excitement and concern, optimism and pessimism. While there are challenges facing humanity that can only be answered through synthetic biology applications (increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis, for example) and more precise biological designs, consumer groups will continue to present the processes used to create enhanced products as the direct counterpart to processes traditionally considered natural. The industry needs to remind consumers that rather than competing with natural processes, synthetic biology is seeking to build upon them with tools and cues provided by nature itself.

If we have the ability to make biology more efficient, more useful, and more perfect, then why shouldn't we? Nucleic acids are simply the building blocks of life, similar to how elements are the building blocks of the physical world. When's the last time consumers marched against DuPont for producing nylon from the building blocks presented in the periodic table because the synthetic polymer cannot be found in the natural world and is created in a laboratory? The conversation needs to be guided back to the facts, not steered towards fearful misinformation.