The New Genesis: From Reading to Writing the Human Code

“Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri”; “Trascender a uno mismo y conquistar el mundo”.

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.” Albert Einstein

Overview

Could synthetic human genomics and generative artificial intelligence merge to transform biology into an engineering discipline? What implications could the new technology have for ethical, legal, and theological ideas over time? Will traditional investment firms need to adjust their strategies to adapt to the new landscape?

To answer the questions, the first part of our article explores the convergence of a combined force that has the potential to transform biology into an engineering discipline. Those forces are synthetic human genomics and generative artificial intelligence. It reviews the progress of this technology across short-, medium-, and long-term perspectives, from immediate personalized treatments to possible heritable human enhancements. The analysis centers on three main areas: the technological capabilities, the significant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI), and the complex challenges to established religious and theological ideas. The rapid and inventive nature of this convergence will require a shift in governance from reactive regulation to proactive, embedded models of responsible innovation, exemplified by the ‘Care-full Synthesis' approach. The paper concludes with suggestions for changes to investment strategies and potential paths for policymakers and scientific organizations to guide the development of these powerful tools toward fair and safe human progress.

The second part of the article will be posted tomorrow. It is suggested that the investors would need to substantially adjust their strategies in comparison to their current practices, illustrating how investors might adapt their strategies differently.

Credit: shu.edu

The New Genesis: From Reading to Writing the Human Code

A biological revolution, driven by the intrinsic power of life rather than just observing it, is poised to transform humanity. For decades, the life sciences have advanced through closer engagement with the genetic code. The Human Genome Project (HGP), completed in 2003, was a historic endeavor to sequence and map the complete genetic blueprint of the human species. More recently, technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 have enabled an era of editing, allowing scientists to make precise changes to existing DNA sequences. Now, a third and much more revolutionary era is beginning: the age of writing. New, ambitious projects, such as the UK-based Synthetic Human Genome (SynHG) project, are moving beyond simply editing DNA to constructing entire chromosomes from chemical building blocks. This transition from editing to writing, propelled by the predictive and creative capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI), marks a fundamental shift in human ability, transforming biology from a purely descriptive science into a powerful engineering discipline.   

Source: S&P Global

A Paradigm Shift in Genomics: Moving Beyond Editing Towards Synthesis

The distinction between genome editing and genome synthesis is not merely one of degree, but of kind. While gene editing tools like CRISPR are powerful, they operate on a pre-existing canvas, tweaking the DNA that nature has provided. In contrast, synthetic genomics aims to build the canvas itself. The SynHG project, a multi-institutional consortium funded by the Wellcome Trust, has the explicit goal of developing the foundational tools and methods to “design and construct an entire human genome from chemically synthesized DNA.” This transition from decoding to designing human genetic material marks a pivotal moment in the field of science.   

The immediate goal of the SynHG project is to demonstrate proof of concept by creating a fully synthetic human chromosome, which constitutes approximately 2% of our total DNA, within a five- to ten-year timeframe. Even this initial step offers capabilities that go far beyond editing. Genome synthesis enables genetic changes on a much larger scale, with higher density, greater accuracy, and improved efficiency. This allows scientists to move beyond merely linking genetic sequences to biological outcomes and to understanding the causal relationships between the genome’s organization and the functioning of the human body. As Professor Joy Zhang, a sociologist involved in the project, notes, while CRISPR is relatively accessible, synthetic DNA is a more ambitious endeavor that requires specialized facilities and skills. Still, it provides “broader and more fundamental possibilities” [Whalen]. This ability to write life, rather than just revise it, opens up entirely new fields of research and application, from developing targeted cell-based therapies to exploring the deepest principles of human biology.   

The Generative Engine: AI as a Co-Creator of Biological Systems

If synthetic genomics provides the chemical ink and paper, artificial intelligence acts as the author. The immense complexity of designing functional, large-scale DNA sequences from scratch presents a computational challenge of staggering scale. Generative AI has become the key enabling technology that makes this challenge manageable. The interaction between AI and synthetic biology is not just an acceleration of existing processes; it is a creative partnership that is fundamentally transforming the “design-build-test-learn” cycle at the core of bioengineering.   

Advanced AI algorithms, particularly deep learning and generative models, are utilized throughout the entire synthetic biology process. They help optimize gene sequences for specific functions, predict the three-dimensional structures of proteins with groundbreaking accuracy (as seen in DeepMind’s AlphaFold), engineer complex metabolic pathways, and automate experimental design to enhance efficiency.   

The most transformative development is the advent of generative AI models specifically trained on biological data. Models like Evo and CODA are not just analyzing existing biology; they are creating new biological components that have never been seen in nature. Evo, a genomic foundation model trained on a dataset of 2.7 million microbial genomes, can produce functional DNA, RNA, and protein sequences and has already been used to design new CRISPR systems from scratch. It can generate plausible genomic sequences up to a megabase long, opening the possibility of designing entire synthetic genomes. Similarly, the CODA platform has been utilized to design synthetic regulatory DNA elements that can activate or repress genes with greater cell-type specificity than any naturally occurring sequences. These AI-designed elements have been validated in live mice, demonstrating the ability to target gene expression to a single layer of cells in the brain.   

This process creates a powerful, self-reinforcing feedback loop that drives exponential progress. AI models design new biological constructs with specific functions. High-throughput robotic platforms, guided by these designs, then synthesize and test these constructs in the lab. The large volumes of high-quality biological data generated from these experiments—such as the 64,000 synthetic enhancers tested by researchers at the Centre for Genomic Regulation to train their AI—serve as the fuel for creating even more powerful and accurate predictive models. Better AI produces more sophisticated synthetic designs, which generate richer datasets that, in turn, train even better AI. This co-evolutionary dynamic between the digital mind of AI and the physical world of synthetic biology is the engine of the new biological revolution. It is steadily transforming biology from a science of observation and description to one of engineering and creation.   

Horizons of Application: Transforming Medicine, Industry, and Humanity

The convergence of AI and synthetic genomics promises to reshape our world, with a clear trajectory of applications moving from the immediately therapeutic to the profoundly transformative. This progression can be understood across three overlapping time horizons: the short-term focus on correcting discrete biological failures, the medium-term ambition of redesigning complex biological systems, and the long-term, speculative potential to redefine the human biological blueprint itself. Each stage builds upon the last, demonstrating that the profound ethical dilemmas of the future are the logical extension of the scientific capabilities being developed today.

Short-Term Horizon (0-10 Years): Correcting and Curing

In the near future, the primary applications of AI-driven genome synthesis are expected to be therapeutic, focusing on curing existing diseases and repairing damage. The goals of the SynHG project reflect this stage: to develop “disease-resistant cells” that can be used to restore damaged organs like the liver and heart and to heal the immune system. This involves creating highly precise, designer cell-based therapies that can be customized for specific functions.   

At the same time, AI is poised to revolutionize drug discovery and personalized medicine. By analyzing large biological datasets, AI algorithms can identify new drug targets, predict molecular interactions, and estimate a drug's efficacy and safety with impressive speed and precision. Early results indicate that AI-discovered drugs achieve success rates of 80-90%, nearly double that of traditional approaches. This computational power, combined with synthetic biology, enables the development of genuinely personalized treatments. For example, AI-designed synthetic DNA can be engineered to serve as a precise switch, turning genes on or off only within specific diseased cells, thereby maximizing therapeutic benefits while minimizing harmful off-target effects in healthy tissue.   

This initial ten-year plan focuses on correction. The science aims to repair the damage, treat illnesses, and restore normal function. The SynHG project's initial goal of creating a single human chromosome serves as a key proof of concept for these more advanced therapeutic applications, laying the groundwork for the tools and knowledge needed for the next stage of innovation.  

Medium-Term Horizon (10-30 Years): Redesigning Complex Systems

As the technology advances, the focus will logically shift from fixing single-gene disorders to redesigning the complex, interconnected biological systems that cause chronic conditions and aging. The goal of achieving “healthier aging with less disease” is not about correcting a single faulty gene but about re-engineering the intricate and multifactorial biological pathways of the aging process itself.   

Mastery of synthesizing entire chromosomes will be the key unlock for this phase. It will enable scientists to go beyond editing limitations and systematically determine the causal relationships between the three-dimensional organization of the genome and the overall function of the body. This deep, functional understanding of our “genomic operating system” is the essential prerequisite for rewriting it.   

This medium-term outlook is therefore defined by the goal to redesign. The focus shifts from mere repair to the systemic improvement of biological functions. Possible applications include creating virus-resistant human cells and tissues for transplantation that are universally compatible and resistant to common pathogens. It may also involve engineering human cells with new properties, such as increased metabolic efficiency or improved DNA repair mechanisms, to support longevity and resilience. This stage signifies a move from fine-tuning a single engine component to optimizing the entire system's performance.  

Long-Term Horizon (30+ Years): Redefining the Human Blueprint

Eventually, as the ability to sequence entire human genomes becomes routine, the most significant and controversial possibilities will emerge. The boundary between therapy and enhancement, already unclear, could vanish entirely, leading to public and scientific debates about the ideas of “designer babies” and “genetically modified humans”.   

The technical feasibility of heritable human genome editing (hGGE)—making permanent, inheritable changes to the DNA of eggs, sperm, or embryos—will become a reality. On one hand, this technology holds the promise of permanently eradicating devastating heritable diseases like Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, or sickle cell anemia from a family's lineage, a goal many would find ethically compelling. On the other hand, the same technology could be used for non-therapeutic enhancement of traits like intelligence, physical appearance, or athletic ability, raising the specter of a new eugenics.   

This final stage has the potential to redefine the very essence of our biological nature. The long-term evolutionary impacts of humanity taking direct, deliberate control of its genetic future are immense and uncertain. By selecting which traits to keep, which to eliminate, and which to develop, we would be stepping away from natural selection and into the role of intelligent designers of our descendants. This is the logical, though unsettling, endpoint of the path that begins with today's research and its therapeutic promise.   

The Golem’s Shadow: Ethical and Philosophical Demands

The ability to modify the human genome is not only a scientific achievement, but it also presents a significant ethical challenge that raises long-standing philosophical questions and introduces urgent new dilemmas. The merger of synthetic genomics and AI compels us to confront issues related to human dignity, social justice, and the security of our global future. Navigating this landscape requires more than just technical skill; it demands profound ethical reflection and the development of innovative, proactive governance strategies.

Human Dignity and the Specter of Genetic Essentialism

At its core, the ability to build a human genome from scratch challenges long-held beliefs about nature, identity, and what it means to be human. This technology directly questions the idea of genetic essentialism—the notion that our genes are a fixed, natural, and unchangeable blueprint that defines who we are. If a person's genome can be digitally created and chemically “printed” in a lab, possibly without ever accessing their physical body, the traditional connection between biological material, lineage, and personal identity is fundamentally weakened.   

This raises deep questions about human dignity. Does changing the human germline for reproductive purposes violate this dignity? The debate is divided, reflecting two opposing ideas of the term. One perspective, often linked to bioconservative thinkers, views human dignity as a limit on individual freedom. It holds that there is a sacredness to our natural human nature. It argues that practices like reproductive cloning or germline enhancement are inherently undignified because they are acts of hubris, treating children as products to be designed rather than gifts to be valued.  

The opposing view, often supported by transhumanist and libertarian thinkers, sees human dignity as the empowerment of individual freedom and rational independence. From this perspective, using technology to surpass biological limits and improve human abilities is not a violation of dignity but its highest expression, as it aligns with our nature as intelligent, tool-using beings and allows us to take control of our biology. A third perspective, emerging from non-Western philosophies such as the African concept of Ubuntu, presents a relational view of dignity. Here, the moral value of a technology like GGE is judged not by its adherence to a fixed idea of nature or individual liberty, but by its contribution to community well-being and human flourishing.   

Equity and the Ghost of a Genetic Divide

Beyond philosophical debates, one of the most urgent social concerns is the risk that these technologies could establish a new and potentially lasting form of inequality. If the advantages of synthetic genomics—from advanced therapies to radical enhancements—are only available to the wealthy, it could lead to a “genetic divide,” a biological gap between those who are enhanced and those who are not.   

This concern extends well beyond unequal access to healthcare. It raises the specter of a new eugenics, where social stratification becomes embedded in our biology and passed down through generations. The idea of “designer babies” for the wealthy could result in a society where the rich are not only socially and economically privileged but also biologically superior, creating a genetic class system that might be impossible to break. Addressing this challenge involves not only considering the cost and availability of future treatments but also questioning which human variations are labeled as “disorders” to be “fixed” and which are valuable parts of human diversity.   

Biosecurity and the Dual-Use Dilemma

The ability to create life also includes the power to destroy it. Synthetic biology, especially when combined with AI, presents a dual-use dilemma of extraordinary scale. The same tools and knowledge used to develop therapeutic cells could be repurposed to generate new pathogens, enhance the virulence of existing viruses, or produce harmful biochemicals within the human body.   

The integration of AI fundamentally changes this threat, shifting the main concern from physical materials to digital information. Traditional biosecurity focuses on controlling access to dangerous pathogens stored in high-security labs. However, synthetic biology enables a pathogen to be recreated from a digital DNA sequence, and generative AI significantly lowers the skill required to design such a sequence. The risk is no longer limited to a physical lab leak; a “digital leak” of a powerful AI design tool or a harmful pathogenic sequence could be just as, if not more, catastrophic. This creates the potential for malicious actors to develop advanced biological weapons with modest resources and a small organizational footprint—threats that current governance frameworks are not well-equipped to address. Reports from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences explicitly warn that agent-based lists, like the Federal Select Agent Program, are inadequate for these emerging threats, and new strategies are required to regulate the flow of information and the use of computational tools.   

Governance and the 'Care-full Synthesis' Model

In a remarkable display of foresight, the leaders of the SynHG project have recognized these significant risks by incorporating an ethical and social component directly into the scientific framework from the beginning. This program, called 'Care-full Synthesis,' is a peer-reviewed, essential part of the research collaboration, led by sociologist Professor Joy Zhang.   

The program's mission is to “identify, understand, and proactively address social concerns” by fostering a transdisciplinary and transcultural dialogue that includes not only scientists and policymakers but also industry, civil society, and the public. The methodology combines direct data collection through interviews and surveys with an analysis of media and policy, aiming to understand how different communities worldwide relate to the science [Whalen]. The ultimate goal is to develop a “toolkit to enable effective integration of careful thinking into the management, communication, and delivery of human genome synthesis”.   

This 'Care-full Synthesis' model marks a major shift in science governance, moving away from a reactive approach where ethical and regulatory bodies scramble to keep up with technological breakthroughs, toward a proactive approach of integrated ethics and responsible innovation. The main goal is to co-develop the ethical and societal boundaries for the technology alongside its development, ensuring that the scientific path is guided by broad societal values from the beginning.

When Man Creates Man: Theological Ruptures and Reconciliations

The idea of creating human life from nothing challenges fundamental religious beliefs about creation, human nature, and the divine. Discussions often turn to the simple yet powerful claim of “playing God.” However, a closer examination of the world's major religious traditions reveals a more subtle, complex, and diverse range of theological views. The key questions aren't the same for everyone, but focus on core doctrines about God's nature, humanity's purpose, the source of suffering, and the meaning of stewardship. For many faiths, the crucial difference isn’t about the act of intervention itself but about the intent behind it and the ultimate goal it aims for.   

Deconstructing “Playing God”: Usurpation vs. Stewardship

The charge of “playing God” is not a single, unified theological argument but a collection of various concerns. At one end lies the fear of  Usurpation—by creating life, humanity is driven by hubris to take a role meant for the divine, echoing the sin of the Tower of Babel by trying to become like God. This view sees the human genome as a sacred text written by God, which humans have no right to alter.   

At the other end of the spectrum is the concept of stewardship or co-creation. This interpretation, also rooted in scripture, sees humanity's God-given intelligence and creativity as tools to fulfill the divine mandate to care for creation, reduce suffering, and “perfect the world  Imago Dei (Image of God), using our abilities to participate in God's ongoing work of healing and restoration.   

This tension—between usurpation and stewardship—is the main focus of most religious debates on genetic technologies. As a result, many traditions make a key distinction: intervention for therapeutic purposes to alleviate suffering is often considered morally acceptable or even required, while intervention for non-therapeutic enhancement motivated by vanity, ambition, or the desire for power is generally condemned as a dangerous form of human pride.   

Comparative Theological Framework

While broad themes of intention and therapy versus enhancement recur, the specific reasoning and red lines of each religious tradition are shaped by its unique theological commitments.

A central tension characterizes Christianity. The biblical command to heal the sick and exercise dominion over creation provides a solid foundation for supporting the therapeutic use of technology. However, this is balanced by serious concerns about human sinfulness, the danger of hubris, and the act of meddling with God's created order. The Catholic Church maintains a particularly firm stance, based on doctrines that emphasize the sanctity of human life from conception and the inseparability of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality. Consequently, this leads to a condemnation of any procedure that involves destroying embryos or separates conception from the marital act, effectively prohibiting most forms of assisted reproductive technology and any research involving embryonic stem cells.   

Protestant views are more varied but often focus on whether the technology serves God's restorative purposes or seeks to establish a human-defined salvation that bypasses divine grace.   

Islam establishes clear guidelines based on Shari'ah principles. The pursuit of beneficial knowledge ('ilm nafi') to prevent or treat illness is highly encouraged, making therapeutic genetic interventions a viable option. This is seen as an act of a trustee (khalifa) managing the body entrusted to them by Allah. However, any attempt to modify the human form for non-therapeutic purposes ('taghyir khalq Allah,' or altering God's creation) is generally forbidden, as is any intervention in the germline that may disrupt sacred lineages.  

Judaism, with its core principle of pikuach nefesh (the obligation to save a life), generally takes a permissive stance toward medical technologies that preserve and extend life. The concept of humanity as a “partner with God” in the ongoing work of creation (tikkun olam, repairing the world) provides a theological foundation for viewing therapeutic interventions as a religious obligation. Although enhancement for vanity is problematic, there is more openness to germline interventions if they can prevent serious, life-threatening diseases.   

Hinduism, lacking a central authority, presents a diverse range of views. Ethical principles are guided by the ideas of karma (the law of moral cause and effect) and dharma (righteous duty). An action's morality is judged by its karmic outcomes and its adherence to dharma, which includes the principle of ahimsa (non-harm). Therefore, a technology that effectively reduces suffering without causing harm is likely acceptable. It is noteworthy that the historical Hindu caste system was a form of eugenics. However, its goal was to maintain social and cosmic order, not the “improvement” of the human species in a modern sense.   

Buddhism assesses all actions, including the use of technology, based on the intention (cetana) behind them. If an intervention is motivated by genuine compassion and wisdom aimed at reducing suffering (dukkha), it is regarded as skillful (kusala). Therefore, therapeutic applications would likely receive support. Conversely, enhancement driven by ego, attachment, greed, or the desire for a “better” self would be seen as unskillful (akusala), as it reinforces the cravings that are the root causes of suffering. The core Buddhist teachings on impermanence (anicca) and not-self (anatta) further challenge the idea of creating a “perfect” or permanent genetic identity, viewing it as a misguided attachment to a transient form.  

The following table provides a concise overview of these various perspectives.

Comparative Theological Perspectives on Synthetic Genomics and AI

Religious Tradition	Core Guiding Concepts	Stance on Somatic/Therapeutic Use	Stance on Germline/Enhancement Use	Key Concerns & Prohibitions
Christianity	Imago Dei (Image of God), Stewardship, Sin, Redemption, Sanctity of Life	Generally permissible, seen as fulfilling the mandate to heal and steward creation.	Highly controversial to prohibit. Concerns about hubris, altering God's design, and unforeseen consequences. The Catholic Church has strong prohibitions.	Usurping God's role, commodification of life, destruction of embryos, and separating procreation from the unitive act.
Islam	Tawhid (Oneness of God), Trustee (Khalifa), Shari'ah, Human Dignity	Permissible and encouraged to prevent/treat disease and reduce suffering.	Prohibited. Seen as altering Allah's creation (taghyir khalq Allah) for vanity/eugenics and interfering with lineage.	Crossing species barriers, tampering with individual responsibility, and germline modification.
Judaism	Pikuach Nefesh (Saving a Life), Partnership with God, Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World)	Permissible and often obligatory. Seen as a duty to heal, preserve, and extend life.	Debated, but more open than other traditions, for preventing severe disease. Enhancement for non-therapeutic reasons is problematic.	Must not violate other laws (e.g., concerning lineage). Must be done with reverence for life.
Hinduism	Karma, Dharma, Samsara, Ahimsa (Non-harm)	Permissible if it skillfully alleviates suffering and does no harm, consistent with dharma.	No unified position. It would be evaluated based on karmic consequences and adherence to dharma. Historical eugenics was for social preservation, not “improvement”.	Causing harm (bad karma), disrupting cosmic and social order.
Buddhism	Dukkha (Suffering), Anicca (Impermanence), Compassion, Intention	Permissible if the intention is purely to alleviate suffering and is done with wisdom and compassion.	Highly suspect. Likely seen as driven by attachment, aversion, and delusion (craving for a “better” self), which leads to more suffering.	Actions driven by unwholesome states (greed, ego, attachment) cause harm to any sentient being.

Navigating the Uncharted: Proposals for a Co-Created Future

The merging of synthetic genomics and artificial intelligence is no longer a distant future but an accelerating reality. The rapid pace and increasing capacity of the AI-Synbio feedback loop are surpassing traditional oversight methods and ethical discussions. To responsibly navigate this new frontier, society cannot be reactive; it must adopt a proactive approach by establishing clear ethical boundaries, implementing robust security measures, and fostering inclusive conversations alongside scientific advancements. This calls for coordinated efforts from policymakers, funding organizations, the scientific community, and the global public to guide this transformative technology toward a future that promotes fair and secure human development.

The Imperative of Proactive Governance

The analysis in this paper leads to one unavoidable conclusion: the speed of change driven by the AI-Synbio synergy makes traditional, reactive governance models outdated. Regulatory frameworks designed for past technologies are poorly suited for a field where the primary focus shifts from physical materials to digital information, and where the time from discovery to implementation is significantly shortened. The main challenge is not just regulation but actively “guiding” the direction of this technology. This requires a shift to proactive governance models that anticipate issues and include ethical considerations early in the innovation process.

Expand on the 'Care-full Synthesis' Model

The most promising model for proactive governance is exemplified by the SynHG project's 'Care-full Synthesis' program. Its approach of integrating a funded, peer-reviewed, and empowered social science and ethics component into a major scientific effort from the beginning offers a blueprint for responsible innovation.   

Therefore, the primary recommendation is for national and international funding bodies (such as the Wellcome Trust, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation), university research offices, and corporate R&D divisions to adopt and institutionalize this model. Major research initiatives in synthetic biology and related fields should be required to include a 'Care-full Synthesis' or similar “embedded ethics” component as a condition of funding. This would ensure that transdisciplinary social scientific research, ethical analysis, and robust public engagement are not afterthoughts but are integral, resourced, and influential parts of the scientific process itself.

Recommendation: Evolving Biosecurity in the Information Age

The dual-use threat from AI-driven synthetic biology is primarily a concern for information security. Consequently, biosecurity frameworks must shift from managing physical materials to protecting digital assets.

Policymakers and security agencies must collaborate with the scientific community and the tech industry to develop new security protocols tailored to the digital nature of the threat. This should include:

• Securing Digital Infrastructure: Developing strong cybersecurity measures for genomic databases, AI design models, and automated laboratory equipment (biofoundries) that convert digital code into physical DNA.  

• Screening synthetic DNA orders: Strengthening and expanding protocols for screening synthetic DNA is essential. This should also include screening AI-generated sequences for potential hazards before synthesis.

• Governing AI models: Examining governance mechanisms for the powerful generative AI systems themselves, potentially including access controls, tiered access based on user verification, and built-in safeguards to prevent the development of harmful biological agents.   

A Suggestion: Promoting Global and Public Dialogue

Ultimately, decisions about how to use a technology that can reshape the human species should not be made by a small group of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers. The future of the human genome is a significant public concern, and its management must be equally democratic and inclusive.

International bodies, national governments, and civil society organizations should collaborate to foster and sustain robust, inclusive, and ongoing global discussions about the future of human genome synthesis [Whalen]. These discussions must be intentionally designed to extend beyond elite academic and policy circles and genuinely involve diverse public groups, including religious communities whose core beliefs are deeply impacted by this technology. By fostering a global dialogue grounded in mutual understanding and shared values, we can strive for a future where the ability to shape our biological story is utilized not with arrogance but with wisdom, care, and a collective commitment to the common good.   

References

ACS Publications. (2024). AI for synthetic biology. ACS Synthetic Biology. Retrieved from https://pubs.acs.org/page/asbcd6/vsi/aiforsynbio

AdikkaChannels. (2025, April 21). Dharma & genetic engineering: How Hindu texts knew about DNA thousands of years ago. AdikkaChannels. Retrieved from https://adikkachannels.com/dharma-genetic-engineering-how-hindu-texts-knew-about-dna-thousands-of-years-ago/

Answers in Genesis. (2023, October 10). Biblical boundaries for human gene editing. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/biblical-boundaries-human-gene-editing/

Barre Center for Buddhist Studies. (2004). All about change. Retrieved from https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/all-about-change/

Bioethics Archive. (n.d.). The ethics of synthetic biology: Suggestions for a comprehensive approach. Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/The-Ethics-of-Synthetic-Biology-Suggestions-for-a-Comprehensive-Approach.pdf

Biotech Med.. (2024). Artificial intelligence in synthetic biology: A new era of discovery. Retrieved from https://www.biotechmedjournal.com/articles/abb-aid1039.php

Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective. Nickbostrom.com. Retrieved from https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/genetic

Brill. (2013). Playing God? Synthetic biology from a Protestant perspective. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/journals/wo/17/1/article-p48_5.pdf

CACM. (2022). Artificial intelligence for synthetic biology. Communications of the ACM. Retrieved from https://cacm.acm.org/research/artificial-intelligence-for-synthetic-biology/

Catholic News Agency. (2024). Catholic bioethicist weighs in on scientific effort to create life from scratch. Retrieved from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261831/catholic-bioethicist-weighs-in-on-scientific-effort-to-create-life-from-scratch

Center for Christian Bioethics. (1995). Adventist guidelines on genetic engineering. Loma Linda University. Retrieved from https://religion.llu.edu/bioethics/adventist-guidelines-genetic-engineering

Chabad.org. (n.d.). The importance of life in Judaism. Retrieved from https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/364283/jewish/The-Importance-of-Life-in-Judaism.htm

CIDRAP. (2025). New report spotlights top synthetic biology threats. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/bioterrorism/new-report-spotlights-top-synthetic-biology-threats

Coward, H. (2003). Ethics and genetic engineering in Indian philosophy, and some comparisons with modern Western philosophy. Journal for the Study of Hindu-Christian Studies. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=jhcs

Dharma Wisdom. (n.d.). Making major life changes. Retrieved from https://dharmawisdom.org/making-major-life-changes/

Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Eugenics and religious law: IV. Hinduism and Buddhism. Retrieved from https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/eugenics-and-religious-law-iv-hinduism-and-buddhism

Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. (2024). Governing the risks and opportunities of AI-enabled synthetic biology: A literature review. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1359768/full

GAO. (2023). Synthetic biology. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/819138.pdf

Ghaly, M. (2019). Islamic ethical perspectives on human genome editing. Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved from https://issues.org/islamic-ethical-perspectives-human-genome-editing/

Global Governance Institute. (2025). Synthetic biology and the future of global environmental governance. Retrieved from https://www.globalgovernance.eu/publications/synthetic-biology-and-the-future-of-global-environmental-governance

GotQuestions.org. (2022, January 4). How should a Christian view genetic engineering? Retrieved from https://www.gotquestions.org/genetic-engineering.html

Gyngell, C. (2017). Gene editing and the health of future generations. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 110(7), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076817705616

Hurlbut, J. B., & Jasanoff, S. (2024). Unravelling the ethics of synthetic DNA. BMJ Medical Ethics Blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2024/11/28/unravelling-the-ethics-of-synthetic-dna/

IEP. (n.d.). Human dignity. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/human-dignity/

International Islamic Fiqh Academy. (2012). Heredity, genetic engineering, and human genome. Retrieved from https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33075.html

Islam Question & Answer. (2025, January 1). Is it permissible to study genetic engineering in Islam? Retrieved from https://islamqa.info/en/answers/103335/is-it-permissible-to-study-genetic-engineering-in-islam

Jewish Theological Seminary. (2022, October 21). The world of creation in each of us. Retrieved from https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/the-world-of-creation-in-each-of-us/

Johnson S. J. S. (2025). AI Revolutionizing Cell and Genetic Engineering: Innovations and Applications. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2952, 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-4690-8_12

Journal of Law and the Biosciences. (2021). Human dignity and germline genome editing. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab002/6146557

Journal of Student Research. (2023). Impact of Christian ethics on biotechnological resilience within the 21st century. Retrieved from https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/download/4643/2272/36845

Keenan, S. J. (1999). Indulging anxiety: Human enhancement from a Protestant perspective. PhilPapers. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/JAMWPI-2

Kinnu. (2023). Ethical, legal, and social implications of synthetic biology. Retrieved from https://kinnu.xyz/kinnuverse/science/synthetic-biology/ethical-legal-and-social-implications-of-synthetic-biology/

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2015). Reproductive technologies and the Vatican. Santa Clara University. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/religious-and-catholic-ethics/resources/reproductive-technologies-and-the-vatican/

Martínez Miguel, V. E. (2025, July 11). ¿Puede revertirse el envejecimiento? Retrieved from https://elpais.com/salud-y-bienestar/nosotras-respondemos/2025-07-12/puede-revertirse-el-envejecimiento.html

McGee, G. (2010). In synthetic life, the can is as important as the Coke. Since News Retrieved from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/synthetic-life-can-important-coke

Medium. (2024). The ethics of creating synthetic life: Designing organisms with custom DNA. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@ayesha.siddiqa2197/the-ethics-of-creating-synthetic-life-designing-organisms-with-custom-dna-b1ab17931f88

Mhaskar, R., & Lajoie, M. J. (2025). Review on advancement of AI in synthetic biology. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392963552_Review_on_Advancement_of_AI_in_Synthetic_Biology

Namchak.org. (n.d.). Acceptance: A Buddhist approach to dealing with change. Retrieved from https://www.namchak.org/community/blog/acceptance-a-buddhist-approach-to-dealing-with-change/

National Academies. (2018). If misused, synthetic biology could expand the possibility of creating new weapons. Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/06/if-misused-synthetic-biology-could-expand-the-possibility-of-creating-new-weapons-dod-should-continue-to-monitor-advances-in-the-field-new-report-says

National Academies. (2018). Strategies for identifying and addressing biodefense vulnerabilities posed by synthetic biology. Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/strategies-for-identifying-and-addressing-biodefense-vulnerabilities-posed-by-synthetic-biology

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2020). The ethics of gene editing from an Islamic perspective: A focus on the recent gene editing of the Chinese twins. PubMed. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32125604/

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2022). Playing God? Religious perspectives on manipulating the genome. PubMed. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35025007/

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2013). Is the creation of artificial life morally significant? PubMed Central. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3878377/

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2019). Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. PubMed Central. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759421/

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2025). Review on advancement of AI in synthetic biology. PubMed. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40553349/

National Catholic Reporter. (2025). The Catholic Church believes in science. That good Christians must be anti-science is a myth. Retrieved from https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/catholic-church-believes-science-good-christians-must-be-anti-science-myth

NDTV. (2025). Controversy erupts as scientists start work to create artificial human DNA. Retrieved from https://www.ndtv.com/science/controversy-erupts-as-scientists-start-work-to-create-artificial-human-dna-8774112

Northwestern University. (n.d.). Synthetic biology 101. Center for Synthetic Biology. Retrieved from https://syntheticbiology.northwestern.edu/about-us/synthetic-biology-101/

Number Analytics. (2025). AI in synthetic biology. Retrieved from https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ai-in-synthetic-biology

Number Analytics. (n.d.). Ethics of synthetic biology. Retrieved from https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ethics-of-synthetic-biology

Number Analytics. (n.d.). Faith and genetics: A delicate balance. Retrieved from https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/faith-and-genetics-a-delicate-balance

Number Analytics. (n.d.). Future genomics: Genetic engineering. Retrieved from https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-genomics-genetic-engineering

Number Analytics. (n.d.). Philosophical perspectives on genetic ethics. Retrieved from https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/philosophical-perspectives-genetic-ethics

PBS News. (2016). Gene-editing, religion and one scientist's quest to reconcile the two. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/gene-editing-religion-scientist

Pew Research Center. (2001). Views on genetic modification of food influenced by religious beliefs, not just science. Retrieved from https://www.pew.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2001/07/26/views-on-genetic-modification-of-food-influenced-by-religious-beliefs-not-just-science

PFP Consortium. (2024). Synthetic biology and AI: Emerging challenges to international security. Retrieved from https://www.pfp-consortium.org/news/synthetic-biology-and-ai-emerging-challenges-international-security

PHG Foundation. (2025). Investigating synthetic human genomes. Retrieved from https://www.phgfoundation.org/blog/investigating-synthetic-human-genomes/

Philosophy Institute. (2023). Genetics, human nature, and philosophical debates. Retrieved from https://philosophy.institute/philosophy-of-technology/genetics-human-nature-debates/

PhilPapers. (n.d.). Synthetic biology and religion. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/DALSBA-3

Positive Psychology. (n.d.). How to accept the impermanence of life: A Buddhist take. Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/impermanence/

POST. (2020). Human germline genome editing. UK Parliament. Retrieved from https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0611/POST-PN-0611.pdf

Pregenic Solutions. (n.d.). Genetic science in ancient India. Retrieved from https://pregenics.in/genetics-ancient-india/

PWOnlyIAS. (2025). Synthetic human genome project. Retrieved from https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/synthetic-human-genome-project/

Reasons to Believe. (2012). A theology for synthetic biology, part 2 (of 2). Retrieved from https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/a-theology-for-synthetic-biology-part-2-of-2

Resilience.org. (2025). Genetic engineering and generative AI: An explosive mix. Retrieved from https://www.resilience.org/stories/2025-02-19/genetic-engineering-and-generative-ai-an-explosive-mix/

Sang, H. (2024). AI and the future of generative biology. Sanger Institute Blog. Retrieved from https://sangerinstitute.blog/2024/10/17/ai-and-the-future-of-generative-biology/

Schloissnig, S., Pani, S., Ebler, J. et al. Structural variation in 1,019 diverse humans based on long-read sequencing. Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09290-7

Science Alert. (2025). First step towards an artificial human genome now underway. Retrieved from https://www.sciencealert.com/first-step-towards-an-artificial-human-genome-now-underway

ScienceDaily. (2025). AI-designed DNA controls genes in healthy mammalian cells for first time. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250508112324.htm

Science Media Centre. (2025). Expert reaction to a Wellcome announcement on a new synthetic human genome research project (SynHG). Retrieved from https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-wellcome-announcement-on-a-new-synthetic-human-genome-research-project-synhg/

Siddiqa, A. (2025). AI-powered drug discovery & personalized medicine: How artificial intelligence is revolutionizing healthcare. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@ayesha.siddiqa2197/ai-powered-drug-discovery-personalized-medicine-how-artificial-intelligence-is-revolutionizing-19fbbad54238

SynBioBeta. (2024). Evo: The AI that's decoding life's genetic blueprint. Retrieved from https://www.synbiobeta.com/read/evo-the-ai-thats-decoding-lifes-genetic-blueprint

Synbio-tech. (n.d.). Transforming the DNA of research with next-gen gene synthesis. Retrieved from https://synbio-tech.com/next-gen-gene-synthesis

TechAhead. (2025). AI in drug discovery: Unlocking personalized medicine. Retrieved from https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/ai-in-drug-discovery-unlocking-the-personalized-medicine/

TeselaGen. (2023). AI is transforming synthetic biology. Retrieved from https://teselagen.com/in-the-news/ai-is-transforming-synthetic-biology/

Time. (2017). Why CRISPR gene modification won't change evolution. Retrieved from https://time.com/4626571/crispr-gene-modification-evolution/

University of Manchester. (2025). New project to pioneer the principles of human genome synthesis. Retrieved from https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/new-project-to-pioneer-the-principles-of-human-genome-synthesis/

USCJ. (2019). Why were we created? Retrieved from https://journeys.uscj.org/why-were-we-created/

Wellcome Trust. (n.d.). Explained: The potential of synthetic genomics to improve health. Retrieved from https://wellcome.org/news/explained-potential-synthetic-genomics-improve-health

Whalen, R. (n.d.). A radical new endeavor, the Synthetic Human Genome Project, is attempting to build synthetic human DNA from scratch, but who is asking how this science will impact society? The Debrief.

WHO. (n.d.). Human genome editing. World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/human-genome-editing

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Human germline engineering. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_germline_engineering

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Jewish views on evolution. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

Xiao, Z., et al. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence GPT-4 accelerates knowledge mining and machine learning for synthetic biology. ACS Synthetic Biology. Retrieved from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00310?

Yahoo News. (2025). Scientists launch controversial project to create the world's first synthetic human chromosome. Retrieved from https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-launch-controversial-project-create-162259961.html

Yale School of Medicine. (2024). Generative AI designs DNA sequences to switch genes on and off. Retrieved from https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/generative-ai-designs-dna-sequences-to-switch-genes-on-and-off/

Final Remarks

A group of friends from “Organizational DNA Labs," a private group, compiled references and notes from various group members' theses and other authors, including ours, as well as media and academic sources, for this article and analysis. We also utilized AI platforms, including Gemini, Storm from Stanford University, Grok, Open-Source ChatGPT, and Grammarly, as research assistants to ensure the coherence and logical flow of our expressions. By utilizing these platforms, we aim to verify information from multiple sources and confirm its accuracy through academic databases and equity firm analysts with whom we have collaborated. The references and notes in this work provide a comprehensive list of our sources. As a researcher and editor, I have taken great care to ensure that all sources are properly cited and that the authors receive recognition for their contributions. The content primarily reflects our compilation, analysis, and synthesis of these sources. The summaries and inferences demonstrate our dedication and motivation to expand and share knowledge. While we have relied on high-quality sources to inform our perspective, the conclusion represents our current views and understanding of the topics covered, which continue to evolve through ongoing learning and literature reviews in this business field.