Eric Schmidt On Synthetic Biology, AI, Ethics And The Bioeconomy’s ‘Seismic Shift’

Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google
GOOG
, has a new passion that he’s betting big on: The Bioeconomy. Last year, his philanthropic organization Schmidt Futures launched a Bio Futures group and published a strategic report with recommendations for how the US government should be investing in growing this vital part of the economy consisting of goods and services that are built with biology. In 2022 Eric and I sat down for a fireside chat at the SynBioBeta conference. I asked Eric for an update a year on, and here are his complete responses.

You mentioned the Bioeconomy Moonshot as a way to drive progress in biotech. What recent developments or advancements in synthetic biology are you most excited about?

I’m excited about the potential of AI to accelerate the development of a thriving bioeconomy.

Without advanced computation, discoveries of the past decade, such as the discovery of new methods to store data in DNA instead of energy-guzzling data centers, would have been impossible. I’m excited about the prospects for AI to accelerate many sectors of the bioeconomy – biomedical, agricultural, and industrial – as well as to drive new basic research discoveries in biology broadly.

But at this moment, the use of AI tools in the scientific and engineering research ecosystem is still in the early adopter stage rather than being a default part of researchers’ toolkits. So even though the exponential growth of machine learning and cloud computing and the dramatic advances in generating data about living systems through next-generation DNA sequencing and single-cell genomics are already game changers, there’s still a lot more to discover. And AI can really drive this process of scientific discovery.

But beyond AI, there are other developments in the industry worth noting. For example, biotech innovators are making strides to reduce our dependence on petroleum, with bio-based manufacturing providing alternatives to how we normally produce industrial and consumer goods. Let me give you an example. LanzaTech announced a strategic collaboration with a Swiss sports brand to provide sustainable foam material for high-performance running shoes. This novel foam is created through a fermentation process driven by captured carbon monoxide emitted from industrial sources instead of made chemically from petroleum, as are similar foams. And that’s just a snapshot of the many new bio-derived products that came on the scene in the last year.

One of the challenges you mentioned last year was the need for greater collaboration between different sectors and disciplines in the biotech industry. Have there been any significant examples of successful partnerships recently that you think could be the beginning of meaningful change?

Last June, BioMADE issued a special Project Call on advancing bioreactor design and development, with support from Schmidt Futures and fiscal sponsorship by the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (a non-profit, public-private partnership). This was a significant step because we know that we need a lot more investment in infrastructure, workforce, and advanced manufacturing science and engineering required to scale scientific discoveries from the laboratory to the marketplace. Creating novel types of bio-based products, products from renewable carbon sources such as plants, on a commercial scale could be greatly accelerated through bioreactor innovation. And just last month, in response to that Project Call, BioMADE announced five new projects focused on bioreactor innovation.

And I believe the BioMADE model enhances the likelihood of successful partnerships for three reasons. First, it has a site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, in our nation’s heartland. This is important because a thriving future bioeconomy depends on distributing production evenly across the country, not just in the known coastal hubs of biotechnology such as Boston and San Francisco. Second, members co-invest in projects, and this presents opportunities to go further than they may be able to in academic or for-profit organizations. And third, the BioMADE ecosystem places a strong emphasis on sharing the new tools and technologies that they create while preserving proprietary information. So anything new that members create together is shared with other BioMADE members, and that’s the type of collaboration that you need to advance the field in the public interest. As excited as we are about BioMADE’s new partnerships in bioreactor innovation, we are not stopping there. We believe biosensor innovation is needed, too, and we look forward to catalyzing new biosensor technology partnerships in the coming year.

Ethical considerations are a vital part of the biotech industry. What progress has been made recently in addressing ethical concerns related to biotech over the past year, and what more needs to be done? Can you compare and contrast the AI debate with the SynBio debate? What should we be learning from the public’s reaction to the new technology rollout?

First, let’s look at the similarities between the debates over biotechnology and AI. Fundamentally, I think they converge around the question of public trust and confidence that new technologies will be applied responsibly and will ultimately improve their lives.

Many products of the bioeconomy are already part of our everyday lives in a good way. For instance, consumers can now buy laundry detergents with biologically-produced enzymes that work best in cold water, protein foods from plants that look and taste like meat, apparel made from biobased nylon, and even leather-like clothing made from mushrooms. I don’t think anyone would argue that those are positive developments.

The record of AI is more complex. AI is already moving science forward for public benefit, but we also already have ample evidence that AI, if misused, can amplify damaging forces for our society and democracy, such as polarization and misinformation.

There were governance questions raised in the last year for pathogen research and interest by Congress regarding a possible moratorium- who should decide how the research should be conducted and where? How should it be coordinated nationally and internationally? These are important questions, and I think we’ll see action this year from the government and from biotechnology leaders to take a hard look at the associated ethical, legal, social, and environmental conditions related to biotechnology and biomanufacturing.

Governments and policymakers play an essential role in supporting the growth of the biotech industry. How do you see the Biden Administration’s recent executive order and pledge to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing impacting the SynBio space?

The Bioeconomy Executive Order heralds a seismic shift in how the US will coordinate and strategically advance the US bioeconomy toward multiple objectives that include carbon management, economic development, biosecurity and biosafety, and the workforce of the future. If I understand the timeline correctly, the White House is expected to finalize an implementation plan next month, and I am optimistic that the plan will describe concrete actions that the US can achieve to strategically advance the US bioeconomy. One can hope that these actions will include a deliberate focus on moving engineering biology discoveries from lab to market, helping new technology developers through new loan programs for biomanufacturing infrastructure, as well as through newly streamlined, clear regulatory processes.

Last year you mentioned the potential of biotechnology to address environmental and sustainability issues. How have developments in this area progressed since your presentation at the 2022 SynBioBeta conference, and what do you see as notable examples of successful biotech applications for sustainability?

In the last year, we’ve seen some important developments in biotechnology for addressing the climate crisis, particularly from industry. Living Carbon is a company that develops genetically engineered trees to grow faster and capture more CO² out of the atmosphere.

Sustainable building companies are also looking at ways to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the construction industry. The production of Portland cement (OPC) accounts for over 8% of global carbon emissions—that’s four times more than the aviation industry. Biomason and StoneCycling recently teamed up to launch a bio-based tiles product in Europe. It would be great if the U.S. could also turn its attention to bio-based construction materials to reduce carbon emissions.

In addition, there are many companies that are now scaling up cell-cultivated meat, poultry, and seafood, a huge benefit of which will be significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at scale. A now-famous forerunner of these new meat products is the Impossible Burger, a non-meat product made from plants and tastes like meat that, compared to a burger made from a cow, uses 96% less land, 87% less water, and 89% fewer emissions in producing its burger patty. So, from my perspective, the future looks bright for successful applications of biotech for sustainability.