DOE Joint Genome Institute

  • COVID-19
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Our Science
    • DOE Mission Areas
    • Science Programs
    • Science Highlights
    • Scientists
    A vertical tree stump outdoors with about a dozen shiitake mushrooms sprouting from its surface.
    Tracing the Evolution of Shiitake Mushrooms
    Understanding Lentinula genomes and their evolution could provide strategies for converting plant waste into sugars for biofuel production. Additionally, these fungi play a role in the global carbon cycle.

    More

    Soil Virus Offers Insight into Maintaining Microorganisms
    Through a collaborative effort, researchers have identified a protein in soil viruses that may promote soil health.

    More

    Data yielded from RIViT-seq increased the number of sigma factor-gene pairs confirmed in Streptomyces coelicolor from 209 to 399. Here, grey arrows denote previously known regulation and red arrows are regulation identified by RIViT-seq; orange nodes mark sigma factors while gray nodes mark other genes. (Otani, H., Mouncey, N.J. Nat Commun 13, 3502 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31191-w)
    Streamlining Regulon Identification in Bacteria
    Regulons are a group of genes that can be turned on or off by the same regulatory protein. RIViT-seq technology could speed up associating transcription factors with their target genes.

    More

  • Our Projects
    • Search JGI Projects
    • DOE Metrics/Statistics
    • Approved User Proposals
    • Legacy Projects
    A panoramic view of a lake reflecting a granite mountain.
    Genome Insider: Methane Makers in Yosemite’s Lakes
    Meet researchers who sampled the microbial communities living in the mountaintop lakes of the Sierra Nevada mountains to see how climate change affects freshwater ecosystems, and how those ecosystems work.

    Listen

    A light green shrub with spiny leaves, up close.
    Genome Insider: A Shrubbier Version of Rubber
    Hear from the consortium working on understanding the guayule plant's genome, which could lead to an improved natural rubber plant.

    Listen

    The switchgrass diversity panel growing at the Kellogg Biological Station in Michigan. (David Lowry)
    Mapping Switchgrass Traits with Common Gardens
    The combination of field data and genetic information has allowed researchers to associate climate adaptations with switchgrass biology.

    More

  • Data & Tools
    • IMG
    • Data Portal
    • MycoCosm
    • PhycoCosm
    • Phytozome
    • GOLD
    iPHoP image (Simon Roux)
    iPHoP: A Matchmaker for Phages and their Hosts
    Building on existing virus-host prediction approaches, a new tool combines and evaluates multiple predictions to reliably match viruses with their archaea and bacteria hosts.

    More

    Abstract image of gold lights and squares against a black backdrop
    Silver Age of GOLD Introduces New Features
    The Genomes OnLine Database makes curated microbiome metadata that follows community standards freely available and enables large-scale comparative genomics analysis initiatives.

    More

    Graphical overview of the RNA Virus MetaTranscriptomes Project. (Courtesy of Simon Roux)
    A Better Way to Find RNA Virus Needles in the Proverbial Database Haystacks
    Researchers combed through more than 5,000 data sets of RNA sequences generated from diverse environmental samples around the world, resulting in a five-fold increase of RNA virus diversity.

    More

  • User Programs
    • Calls for Proposals
    • Special Initiatives & Programs
    • Product Offerings
    • User Support
    • Policies
    • Submit a Proposal
    Green plant matter grows from the top, with the area just beneath the surface also visible as soil, root systems and a fuzzy white substance surrounding them.
    Supercharging SIP in the Fungal Hyphosphere
    Applying high-throughput stable isotope probing to the study of a particular fungi, researchers identified novel interactions between bacteria and the fungi.

    More

    Digital ID card with six headshots reads: Congratulations to our 2022 Function Genomics recipients!
    Final Round of 2022 CSP Functional Genomics Awardees
    Meet the final six researchers whose proposals were selected for the 2022 Community Science Program Functional Genomics call.

    More

    croppe image of the JGI helix sculpture
    Tips for a Winning Community Science Program Proposal
    In the Genome Insider podcast, tips to successfully avail of the JGI's proposal calls, many through the Community Science Program.

    Listen

  • News & Publications
    • News
    • Blog
    • Podcasts
    • Webinars
    • Publications
    • Newsletter
    • Logos and Templates
    • Photos
    2022 JGI-UC Merced interns (Thor Swift/Berkeley Lab)
    Exploring Possibilities: 2022 JGI-UC Merced Interns
    The 2022 UC Merced intern cohort share how their summer internship experiences have influenced their careers in science.

    More

    image from gif that shows where in the globe JGI fungal collaborators are located.
    Using Team Science to Build Communities Around Data
    As the data portals grow and evolve, the research communities further expand around them. But with two projects, communities are forming to generate high quality genomes to benefit researchers.

    More

    Cow Rumen and the Early Days of Metagenomics
    Tracing a cow rumen dataset from the lab to material for a hands-on undergraduate research course at CSU-San Marcos that has since expanded into three other universities.

    More

Our Science
Home › Our Science › Science Programs › DNA Synthesis Science Program › Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

This web page provides guidance for Investigators as they prepare their JGI DNA synthesis proposal submissions in anticipation of the Synthetic Biology Internal Review process.

Background

Synthetic biology has the potential to accelerate science and bolster economic growth. However, like any new technology, synthetic biology could be misapplied or result in unintended consequences. Legitimate concerns have been raised over the intentional use of synthetic biology approaches to engineer pathogenic organisms and the accidental environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. Scientists pursuing synthetic biology research must diligently consider issues such as these.

Overview of the JGI Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process

The JGI Synthetic Biology Internal Review process seeks to assess, beyond technical and scientific merit, the broader aspects (e.g., environmental, biosafety, biosecurity) of the research proposals associated with the JGI’s DNA synthesis program. The purpose of this internal review process is two-fold: 1) to assess the broader aspects of the research, request proposal modifications if issues of concern are not sufficiently addressed in the proposal, reject research proposals where issues of concern are not or can not be satisfactorily addressed, and output a paper-trail audit of the review process; and 2) to encourage and educate researchers to more extensively consider the broader aspects of their research, including beyond the immediate research itself.

All JGI DNA synthesis proposals (including those from the JGI Community Science Program and from the DOE Bioenergy Research Centers) contain a broader implications section dedicated to a brief discussion of these broader aspects. This broader implications statement should address not merely the possible rewards but also a considered statement of the risks associated with the work. These statements serve as a useful tool to protect not only the public, but the Investigators (and their institutions), as well as JGI itself. These statements are proof of consideration and deliberation – proof of the responsible application of science. As members of the research community, we must consider risks, and be able to show our consideration of those risks – even if they are demonstrably small.

After a synthetic biology research proposal has successfully passed technical feasibility and scientific merit review, the proposal enters the JGI’s Synthetic Biology Internal Review process. A JGI system administrator uploads the proposal to the Synthetic Biology Internal Review System (SBIRS) and assigns a minimum of 3 Reviewers to it. Each Reviewer reads the full proposal, makes comments on the proposal in the SBIRS, and votes in the SBIRS to either approve the proposal or to discuss it further with the other assigned Reviewers. If not unanimously approved, the assigned Reviewers discuss the proposal in person or via telephone, and decide to approve or reject the proposal, or to require that modifications be made to the proposal to address the Reviewers’ concerns. The Reviewers email the decision to a system administrator, who records the decision in the SBIRS. If the Reviewers decide to approve the proposal after discussion, a JGI Director is required to approve the proposal before work begins. A JGI Director can reject any proposal, and can require that additional modifications be made to any proposal. The entire Synthetic Biology Internal Review process should take three weeks or less (unless modifications are requested, which could delay the process by an additional three weeks or more).

Guidelines for Investigators

Investigators are strongly encouraged to use the broader implications section of the proposal to make it clear to the Reviewers that the Investigators are actively thinking about the broader implications of their research, and that they have mitigation strategies in place to address outstanding issues of concern. Note that Investigators are not expected to provide an in-depth analysis (e.g., full socio-economic analysis) of their early-stage research, but Investigators should demonstrate that they are currently considering the implications of their research, and that more in-depth analyses can and will be pursued as their research matures. Investigators should not merely write “None” or “All research will be conducted in a safe manner according to Federal regulations” in the broader implications statement, as this will lead to the Reviewers asking for proposal modifications, incurring three week or longer delays. In addition, Investigators are requested to check over their proposals for spelling and grammar mistakes, which will not favorably contribute to the review process.

Investigators must explicitly state if their proposed research would:

  1. Demonstrate how to make a vaccine ineffective
  2. Confer resistance to antibiotics or antiviral agents
  3. Enhance a pathogen’s virulence or make a non-virulent microbe virulent
  4. Increase transmissibility of a pathogen
  5. Alter the host range of a pathogen
  6. Enable a pathogen’s ability to evade diagnostic or detection modalities
  7. Enable the weaponization of a biological agent or toxin

Here are a couple of illustrative scenarios that may assist Investigators as they think about the broader aspects of their proposed research:

A)    A plant lab is seeking to better understand plant/pathogen interactions. As part of the research plan, the researchers will develop a plant pathogen strain that no longer stimulates a response in the plant. What are the concerns around an unintentional and/or intentional uncontrolled release of this engineered pathogen? What could and should the plant lab itself do to address these concerns, and who else could and should it collaborate with along these lines?

B)    A microbiology lab is seeking to develop a more robust microbe that can break down cell walls of a wider variety of feedstocks, some of which may contain components that can impair cell growth and replication. To this end, the researchers will add exogenous catabolic and solvent-tolerance genes to a non-pathogenic microbe for the purpose of more effectively deconstructing the feedstock biomass. What consequences could result from such work if this engineered organism were to be unintentionally released from the lab? What could and should the microbiology lab itself do to address these concerns, and who else could and should it collaborate with along these lines?

Note that these two illustrative examples are by no means the only issues to consider. It is up to the Investigator (and the Reviewers) to determine the broader aspects of the proposed research.

Thinking about proposed research in a broader light may feel uncomfortable to Investigators that are unaccustomed to doing so. However, investigators should recognize that there are broader aspects, positive and negative, to all research, and that in some cases, actively considering these aspects enables the placement of mitigating strategies so as to avoid unwanted outcomes.

Responding to Modifications Required by Reviewers

As mentioned above, one possible outcome of the Internal Review process is that the Reviewers may require modifications be made to a proposal before it can be approved. When modifications are required, the Internal Review decision report that the Researcher receives will contain a section entitled “Review Committee Decision Notes” as well as a section entitled “Reviewer Comments”. Researchers should be sure to address the specific modifications requested in the “Review Committee Decision Notes” section. While Researchers may respond to any of the individual comments in the “Reviewer Comments” section, this should not be considered essential. It should be noted that, as described above, Reviewers individually comment on each proposal before discussing proposals together. During group discussion, Reviewers may collectively determine if any of the individual comments must be responded to, and if so, the Reviewers will include these points of concern in their decision notes.

Summary

Investigators are encouraged to think broadly about the aspects of their research. This will make sure that JGI DNA synthesis is not delayed, and it will start to nudge the collective research community’s cultural mindset in the right direction.

  • Plant Program
  • Fungal & Algal Program
  • Metagenome Program
  • Microbial Program
  • DNA Synthesis Science Program
    • Synthetic Biology Internal Review Process
    • Synthetic Biology Publications
  • Metabolomics Program
  • Secondary Metabolites

More topics:

  • COVID-19 Status
  • News
  • Science Highlights
  • Blog
  • Webinars
  • CSP Plans
  • Featured Profiles
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • User Meeting
  • MGM Workshops
  • Internal
  • Disclaimer
  • Credits
  • Policies
  • Emergency Info
  • Accessibility / Section 508 Statement
  • Flickr
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Biosciences Area
A project of the US Department of Energy, Office of Science

JGI is a DOE Office of Science User Facility managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

© 1997-2023 The Regents of the University of California