U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–824PDF 2017

THE FUTURE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: 

SOLUTIONS FOR ENERGY, 

AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 8, 2015 

Serial No. 114–54 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

December 8, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Mary Maxon, Biosciences Principal Deputy, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Dr. Steve Evans, Fellow, Advanced Technology Development, Dow 

AgroSciences 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Dr. Reshma Shetty, Co-Founder, Ginkgo Bioworks 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Dr. Martin Dickman, Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Plant 

Genomics and Biotechnology, Texas A&M University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Dr. Zach Serber, Co-Founder, CSO, and Vice President of Development, 

Zymergen 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 54 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 57 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 61 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: 

SOLUTIONS FOR ENERGY, 

AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURING 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Comstock 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

Q:ongrcss of the ilnttcd ~tatcs 

iflousc of 1Rcprcscntatiucs 

COMM!nEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

{202) 225-6371 

V\I'WW,Scienc:e.house.gov 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, 

Agriculture and Manufacturing 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Mary Moxon, Biosciences Principal Deputy, Lawrence Berkeley National Labratory 

Dr. Steve Evans, Fellow, Advanced Technology Development, Dow Agro Sciences 

Dr. Reshma Sltetty, Co-Founder, Grinkgo Bioworks 

Dr. Martin Dickman, Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Plant Genomics and 

Biotechnology, Texas A&M University 

Dr. Zach Serber, Co-Founder and Vice President of Development, Zymergen 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and Manufacturing 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 

10:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, the Research & Technology Subcommittee will hold a 

hearing titled The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and 

Manufacturing. The purpose of the hearing is to examine new and emerging biotechnologies for 

applications in the energy, agriculture, and industrial manufacturing sectors. The witnesses will 

provide an overview of these new and emerging technologies, discuss their current and potential 

practical applications and economic benefits for the United States, and address the role of the 

federal government in funding as well as regulating biological science and biotechnology. 

Witness List 

• Dr. Mary Maxon, Biosciences Principal Deputy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

• Dr. Steve Evans, Fellow, Advanced Technology Development, Dow AgroSciences 

• Dr. Resbma Shetty, Co-Founder, Ginkgo Bioworks 

• Dr. Martin Dickman, Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Plant Genomics 

and Biotechnology, Texas A&M University 

• Dr. Zach Serber, Co-Founder and Vice President of Development, Zymergen 

Background 

Biotechnology is the manipulation, through genetic engineering, of living organisms or 

their components to produce useful products. Humans have used biotechnology or 

bioengineered products since the dawn of civilization by crossbreeding to modifY plants and 

animals with desirable traits through hybridization, and other methods. In the mid-1800's, 

scientists discovered the underpinnings of internal units of information that account for 

observable traits (genes), which are passed from one generation to the next. This discovery led 

to a new wave of biotechnology for plants and organisms. 

In 1973, the modem age of biotechnology began when American scientists Stanley 

Cohen and Herbert Boyer devised recombinant DNA technology, the deliberate introduction of 

DNA from one organism into another. Their work made possible the production of genetically 

engineered human insulin, the first such product approved for sale in the United States in 1982. 
4 

Today, the biotechnology industry is a large and growing sector of the U.S. economy, 

employing over 1.62 million Americans across more than 73,000 companies. 1 According to one 

estimate, U.S. revenues from bioengineered products are over $350 billion, approximately 2.4 

percent of U.S. gross domestic product.2 The Biotechnology Industry Organization currently 

estimates over 4,200 innovative research and discovery biotechnology projects in the industry's 

product pipeline.3 

Biotechnology Innovations 

A number of recent advancements in biotechnology due to research and development are 

beginning to affect the growth and expansion ofbiotechnology in many sectors of the economy. 

These advancements include: 

Gene Editing 

Gene or genome editing is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, 

replaced, or removed from a genome using molecular "scissors."4 The CRISPR technique, 

discovered by scientists in 2005, has quickly become one of the most popular ways to do genome 

engineering. Utilizing a modified bacterial protein and an RNA that guides it to a specific DNA 

sequence, the CRISPR system provides a simple and fast way to control genes in many species. 

On June 16, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled The Science and Ethics of Genetically 

Engineered Human DNA. The hearing examined the research and issues surrounding the 

application of new gene editing technologies for human health.5 

Synthetic Biology 

Synthetic biology is an emerging interdisciplinary field that uses advances in chemistry, 

biology, computer science, and engineering to make or re-design living organisms, such as 

bacteria, so that they can carry out specific functions. Synthetic biology involves making new 

genetic code, or DNA, which does not already exist in nature.6 The Woodrow Wilson Center's 

Project on Synthetic Biology has identified over 50 synthetic biology-based products on the 

market, or close to market, including new solvents, polymers, and food ingredients.7 On July 

'"Battelle/BIO State Bioscience Jobs, Investments and Innovation Report 2014," Available at: 

http://www.bio.org/articles/battellebio-state-bioscience-jobs-investments-and-innovation-20 14 2

"The U.S. Bioeconomy in 2012," Available at: http://www .synthesis.cc/20 14/0 l/the-us-bioeconomy-in-20 12.html 3 BIO Testimony, "U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations FY15 Hearing: Driving Innovation through Federal 

Investments," A vail able at: http:/ lwww. bio .org/advocacylletters/us-senate-comm ittee-appropriations-fy IS-hearingdriving-innovation-through-federal4 "The CRISPR Revolution," Science Magazine Special Collection, Available at: 

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra!crispr/?intcmp-HP-COLLECTION-PROMO-crispr 

5

https://science.house.gov/legislationlhearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-science-and-ethics-

~enetically 

Woodrow Wilson Center Synthetic Biology Project, Available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/ 

7 Synthetic Biology Products and Applications Inventory, Woodrow Wilson Center, Available at: 

http://www.synbioproject.org/cpi/ 
5 

17, 2014, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled Policies to Spur Innovative Medical 

Breakthrough from Laboratories to Patients, which in part examined synthetic biology research 

for human health.8 

DNA Sequencing 

DNA sequencing is a process used to determine the sequence of individual genes, larger 

genetic regions or an entire genome. Technological improvements and automation have 

continued to increase speed and lower costs to the point where individual genes can be 

sequenced routinely and an entire human genome can be sequenced for about one thousand 

dollars.9 Beyond humans, DNA sequencing has become a valuable tool across many fields, 

including agricultural biology based on its ability to reveal information regarding crop and 

livestock genome variation that is critical for predicting traits in progeny, screening for diseases, 

monitoring the results of experiments involving transgenic plants and animals, and testing crop 

quality and purity. 

Biotechnology Applications 

The process of biological engineering has many applications in sectors outside of human 

health, primarily energy, agriculture, and industrial manufacturing. 

Energy 

There is increasingly robust research and development for using biotechnology to address 

a number of energy challenges such as enhanced oil recovery, environmental remediation, 

carbon sequestration, new materials, and large-scale sustainable biomass utilization for economic 

production of chemicals and fuels. More than 50 bio-refineries are currently being built across 

North America to test and refine technologies to produce biofuels and chemicals from renewable 

biomass. 10 

Agriculture 

The application of modern biotechnology to agriculture in the United States was 

established in the 1990s with the first successful commercialization of a biotechnology-derived 

crop. Many new crop varieties have been developed and made available to farmers. In 2012, 88 

percent of the corn, 94 percent of the cotton, and 93 percent of the soybeans planted in the U.S. 

were varieties produced through genetic engineering. 11 Biotechnology methods are being used 

to protect crops from environmental threats, such as pests and drought, to improve the quality of 

8 https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-policies-spurinnovative-medical 

9 NIH Genome Project Fact Sheet, Available at: https://www.genome.gov/1 0001177 10 "Healing, Fueling, Feeding: How Biotechnology is Enriching your Life," Available at: 

http://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/ValueofBiotech.pdf 

11 "Agriculture Biotechnology," Available at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid-BIOTECH 
6 

crops (nutritional content) as well as its quantity or yield. On November 19, 2015, the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration approved the first genetically engineered animal intended for food, the 

AquAdvantage Salmon. 12 

Industrial Manufacturing 

Industrial biotechnology is the application of biotechnology for industrial purposes, 

including using cells such as microorganisms, or components of cells like enzymes, to generate 

industrially useful products in sectors such as chemicals, detergents, paper and pulp and textiles. 

Companies are investing in industrial biotechnology to reduce costs and create new sustainable 

productsY Scientists have identified thousands of naturally occurring chemicals, forming the 

basis of creating new and synthetic materials. These materials have the potential to be cheaper in 

order to lower operating costs and reduce capital expenditures when compared to traditional 

manufacturing methods. 14 

Coordinated Frameworkfor the Regulation of Biotechnology 

In the United States, the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, 

first established in 1986, sets basic federal policy for regulating the development and 

introduction of products derived from biotechnology. The Framework was last updated in 1992. 

Last July, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and 

Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, and U.S. Trade Representative issued a 

memorandum 15 directing the three Federal agencies that have oversight responsibilities for biobased products- EPA, FDA, and USDA-to "develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the 

system is prepared for the future products of biotechnology, and commission an expert analysis 

of the future landscape of biotechnology products to support this effort." 16 The update to the 

Framework is expected to be finalized in 2016. 

12 http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents!Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm473249.htm 

:~"What is Industrial Biotechnology," Available at: https://www.bio.org/anicles/what-industrial-biotechnology 

http://www.zvmergen.com/what-we-do/product-development.php 15https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/modernizing the reg system for biotech products 

memo final.pdf 16 https://www. wh itehouse.gov/blog/20 15/07/02/improving-transparency-and-ensuring-continued-safetybiotechnology 
7 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. The Subcommittee on Research and 

Technology will come to order. Without objection, the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Weber, is authorized to participate in today’s hearing. 

And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and Manufacturing.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Humans have used biotechnology since the dawn of civilization, 

manipulating biology to improve plants and animals through hybridization and other methods. 

Rapid advancements in science—scientific knowledge and technology throughout the 20th century gave rise to the field of modern 

biotechnology, making useful products to meet human needs and 

demands. Biotechnology has become part of our everyday lives, 

from producing the insulin used by diabetics, to the corn we eat 

and use to produce fuel, to the detergent that cleans our clothes. 

Today, we are here to discuss what the future of biotechnology 

will look like in this century, specifically for solving some of our 

greatest 21st century challenges in energy, agriculture, and manufacturing. 

In June, the Subcommittee held a hearing on ‘‘The Science and 

Ethics of Genetically Engineered Human DNA.’’ The hearing 

looked at the research and issues surrounding the application of 

new gene editing technologies for human health. I hope that today’s hearing will build upon that fascinating discussion, and help 

inform a research and regulatory framework that continues to ensure safety without stifling innovation. 

The biotechnology and biological science industry is a sizable and 

growing economic driver in our country. In Virginia, the industry 

employs over 26,000 people across 1,500 companies and institutions, including the George Washington University Ashburn Campus Computational Biology Institute located in my district. Here, 

they apply technology tools to a variety of funded research in pediatric medicine, coronary heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, 

and schizophrenia, just to name a few. 

Those are good-paying jobs, and I want to find ways to keep 

those jobs in the United States and encourage young people to 

study the STEM subjects needed to fill these jobs and create new 

ones. But more importantly, these are jobs and an industry that is 

going to improve our way of life and improve our health and save 

lives. 

So I appreciate and look forward to learning more about these 

new and emerging technologies and their applications, understand 

better the role of the federal government in funding and regulating 

biotechnology, and hear from the witnesses about the economic 

benefits to the United States and how we can stay on the cutting 

edge of innovation. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Comstock follows:] 
8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRWOMAN BARBARA COMSTOCK

Humans have used biotechnology since the dawn of civilization, manipulating biology to improve plants and animals through hybridization and other methods. 

Rapid advancements in scientific knowledge and technology throughout the 20th 

Century, gave rise to the field of modern biotechnology- making useful products to 

meet human needs and demands. Biotechnology has become part of our everyday 

lives, from producing the insulin used by diabetics, to the corn we eat and use to 

produce fuel, to the detergent that cleans our clothes. 

Today, we are here to discuss what the future of biotechnology will look like in 

this century, specifically for solving some of our greatest challenges in energy, agriculture and manufacturing. 

In June, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the Science and Ethics of Genetically Engineered Human DNA. The hearing looked at the research and issues surrounding the application of new gene editing technologies for human health. I hope 

that today’s hearing will build upon that fascinating discussion, and help inform a 

research and regulatory framework that continues to ensure safety without stifling 

innovation. 

The biotechnology and biological science industry is a sizable and growing economic driver in the United States. In Virginia, the industry employs over 26,000 

people a cross 1,500 companies and institutions. Including the George Washington 

University Ashburn Campus Computational Biology Institute, located in my district. 

Here they apply technology tools to a variety of funded research in pediatric medicine, coronary heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and schizophrenia, to 

name a few. 

These are good paying jobs—and I want to find ways to keep those jobs in the 

United States and encourage young people to study the STEM subjects needed to 

fill those jobs and create new ones. 

I look forward to learning more about these new and emerging technologies and 

their applications, understand better the role of the federal government in funding 

and regulating biotechnology, and hear from the witnesses about the economic benefits to the United States. 
9 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize—I guess our Ranking 

Member is not with us yet this morning but will be joining us 

shortly. I know he does have a little bit of a flight delay but will 

be with us shortly. And I appreciate Mr. Lipinski joining us, and 

we will recognize him at that time. 

But, let me see, we will—if there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added 

to the record at this point. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Now, at this time I would like to introduce our witnesses: Dr. Mary Maxon is the Biosciences Principal 

Deputy at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She has previous experience as Assistant Director for Biological Research at 

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP, 

and has worked for a variety of biotech organizations. Dr. Maxon 

earned her Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of 

California, Berkeley and did postdoctoral research in biochemistry 

and genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Steve Evans. Dr. Evans is a Fellow for Advanced Technology Development at Dow AgroSciences. 

Dr. Evans is the past Chair of the Industrial Advisory Board of the 

Synberc Synthetic Biology Consortium funded by the National 

Science Foundation. Dr. Evans earned his bachelor’s degrees in 

chemistry and microbiology from the University of Mississippi and 

his Ph.D. in microphysiology from the University of Mississippi 

Medical Center. 

Today’s third witness is Dr. Reshma Shetty, Cofounder of Ginkgo 

Bioworks. Dr. Shetty served as an advisor to the International Genetically Engineered Machines competition, where she was best 

known for engineering bacteria to smell like bananas and mint, 

and was named by Forbes as one of the eight people ‘‘inventing the 

future’’ in 2008. Dr. Shetty earned her bachelor’s in computer 

science from the University of Utah and a Ph.D. in biological engineering from MIT. 

Testifying next is Dr. Martin Dickman, Distinguished Professor 

and Director of the Institute for Plant Genomics and Biotechnology 

at Texas A&M. Dr. Dickman’s research focuses on the genetics and 

molecular biology of fungal-plant interactions, and he established 

that parallels exist between plant and animal systems, disease, and 

infection strategies. Dr. Dickman earned his Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii. 

Our final witness is Dr. Zach Serber, Cofounder and Vice President of Development for Zymergen. Dr. Serber previously worked 

as Director of Biology at Amyris, and as a Research Fellow at Stanford University Medical School. Dr. Serber earned his bachelor’s 

degree from Columbia University, his master’s in neuroscience 

from the University of Edinburgh, and his Ph.D. in biophysics from 

the University of California San Francisco. 

As always, we are so honored to have such distinguished and accomplished witnesses joining us here today. 

And I now recognize Dr. Maxon for five minutes to present her 

testimony. 
10 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARY MAXON, 

BIOSCIENCES PRINCIPAL DEPUTY, 

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. MAXON. Chairwoman Comstock, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this very important meeting and for inviting 

me to participate. I applaud the committee for exploring the great 

potential that advanced biology has to address the Nation’s grand 

challenges and to stimulate innovation. I believe a federally coordinated strategic program that leverages the national labs and other 

existing federal capabilities would greatly accelerate this. 

I am the Biosciences Principal Deputy at Lawrence Berkeley National lab and have enjoyed a 30-year career as a biologist. Recently, I served as Assistant Director for Biological Research at the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, where I was the principal 

author of the National Bioeconomy Blueprint. 

Although my testimony represents my own views, I would be remiss not to recognize the leadership of the Department of Energy 

and Berkeley Lab in driving the Nation’s engineering biology capabilities forward. In particular, DOE’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research supports some of the Nation’s most 

foundational resources in this field. 

DNA can be viewed as a programming language where, instead 

of the 1’s and 0’s that are used to program computers, A’s and C’s 

and G’s and T’s, the building blocks of DNA, are used to program 

biology for useful purposes. While DNA can improve agricultural 

yields, increased nutrients in soil, reduce the need for water and 

fertilizers, it can be used to create bio-solutions to reduce the demand for livestock-based protein sources such as beef and poultry 

and for a planet with more people and fewer resources. It can convert non-food biomass into fuel and chemicals, and in the process, 

replace fossil fuels. It can convert microbes into low-cost producers 

of drugs and alter microbiomes to improve human and animal 

health. 

Although DNA sequencing—that is, reading DNA—thanks in 

large part to the Human Genome Project, is fast, cheap, and democratic, meaning that researchers everywhere can now sequenced 

DNA themselves, engineering biology—that is, writing DNA—remains slow and expensive. 

National labs can help change this dynamic. They can play important roles in harnessing biology to meet national-scale challenges and, in doing so, democratize engineering biology to enable 

researchers everywhere to drive advancements across fields of 

science and industrial applications. But currently missing from this 

collection of high-throughput open—high-throughput—sorry, currently missing from the collection of national laboratory user facilities is a bio-foundry, a high-throughput, open engineering biology 

facility powered by capabilities in physical sciences and supercomputing to develop freely available tools, technologies, and knowledge needed to accelerate engineering biology and drive a sustainable national bioeconomy. 

Such a facility could accelerate scientific discovery, reduce cost 

and time to market for new bioproducts that are needed to transform manufacturing processes for both human and environmental 
11 

benefit. It would build on and capture a greater return on DOE’s 

existing investments in genome sequencing, synthetic biology, and 

other engineering research capabilities. 

Berkeley Lab has made an initial investment to launch an open 

bio-foundry and has undertaken early proof-of-concept work aimed 

at establishing a robust democratic platform technology for the engineering of biology to provide fundamental advances needed to 

transform manufacturing to reduce energy intensity and negative 

environmental impacts of traditional manufacturing. 

Recent industry listening sessions held by Berkeley Lab indicate 

that, in addition to user facilities, national labs can serve at least 

four unique and important functions for industry: 1) meet vital research needs that are considered off-mission by the company investors; 2) validate technologies from the academic sector for companies, which is currently a cost—a time-consuming and frequently 

unproductive endeavor for industry, and provide for the transfer of 

technical expertise and capacity-building directly by embedding industry researchers in the bio-foundry; and lastly, by providing access to flexible pilot-scale production facilities to enable research 

advances in understanding how to predict large-scale production of 

bioproducts, currently something of a holy grail. 

I applaud the Committee for its interest in the topic of engineering biology and believe that a vision for a strong, long-term research and development program, including research in the ethical, 

environmental, and social aspects of engineering biology, is needed 

for the United States to lay a solid foundation on which to build 

a robust and responsible biomanufacturing future, create new markets and jobs, and drive the U.S. bioeconomy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Maxon follows:] 
12 

Testimony 

Dr. Mary Maxon 

Principal Deputy for Biosciences 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and Manufacturing 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

December 8, 2015 

Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this very important hearing and for inviting me to participate. 

applaud the committee for exploring the great potential that advanced biology has to 

address the nation's grand challenges and to stimulate innovation and economic 

growth. 

As the Biosciences Principal Deputy at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(Berkeley Lab), I am privileged to enjoy a front row seat as some of the world's best 

scientists push the boundaries of engineering biology. Over the course of a 30-year 

career as a biologist, I have been employed in industrial and drug discovery 

biotechnology. Most recently, I served as Assistant Director for Biological Research at 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President 

where I was the principal author of the National Bioeconomy Blueprint. Although my 

testimony represents my personal views and does not necessarily represent the views 

of Berkeley Lab or those of the Department of Energy (DOE), I do want to take a 

second to recognize the leadership role of both in driving the nation's engineering 

biology capabilities forward. Funding from the DOE Office of Science's Office of 

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) has nurtured world-class scientists and 

supported the creation of cutting edge tools at Berkeley Lab and throughout the DOE 

national laboratories that are internationally unique and extremely productive. 

Leveraging BER's investments in new and dynamic ways is a key feature of my 

testimony. 

By 2050, the global population is expected to exceed 9 billion people. To feed all of 

those people, the world will need to increase agricultural productivity by 60 percent. 

Further challenging our ability to feed the planet is a predicted 40 percent decrease in 

1 
13 

crop yields by 2050 as much as 80 percent by the turn of the next century. An evergrowing population is also expected to increase worldwide demand for energy by over 

50 percent within the next 30 years. Creating an unvirtuous cycle, growing energy 

consumption will increase the production of carbon dioxide and cause climate 

changes, such as decreased rainfall, that challenge food production and contribute to 

disease. Another growing threat is posed by pathogens resistant to existing 

pharmaceuticals. With more than 25 percent of drugs used today derived from plants, 

competition for land to grow food and plants for medicines create the potential for 

shortages. These challenges are great, and biology can be harnessed to address them 

in sustainable and more efficient ways. 

Biology can improve agricultural yields, increase nutrients in the soil, and reduce the 

need for water and for fertilizers. It can be used to create bio-solutions to reduce the 

demand for livestock-based protein sources such as beef and poultry for a planet with 

more people and fewer resources. It can convert non-food biomass into fuel, 

electricity, and commodity and high-value chemicals and, in the process, replace fossil 

fuels. It can convert microbes into low-cost producers of drugs and alter microbiomes, 

which are beneficial microbial communities, to improve human and animal health. It 

may even be able to produce novel biomaterials with desired properties that do not 

yet exist- such as shatter-proof bio-glass- having an array of uses and potential to 

create new markets in the way that the discovery of the novel material Kevlar did in the 

1960s to revolutionize everything from tires to racing sails to body armor. 

How is this happening? What about biology today leads my colleagues and I to have 

such great optimism about the future and about the value proposition for the nation 

and the world of investing in advanced biology? In a sentence, biology has reached an 

important inflection point. Similar to the advances made in information technology 

decades ago with the advent of programmable electronics, biology can now be 

programmed to more efficiently and effectively address challenges and opportunities. 

Although engineering biology is an extremely sophisticated and complicated effort 

that brings together many fields of scientific and technological research, it is not over 

generalizing to describe its underlying foundation as the ability to program DNA. 

Where computer coding languages use ones and zeros to program computers, DNA is 

a coding language that uses As, Cs, Gs, and Ts, the four building blocks of DNA, to 

program biology. Farmers and botanists have been "programming" DNA for centuries 

in the quest for better food and material sources. And, scientists have been 

programming biology using genetic engineering for decades, applying it to a vast array 

of useful purposes- therapeutics, food, and consumer products. 

2 
14 

Today, biology is poised to exponentially expand its application across broad areas of 

science and technology. Genome sequencing is fast, cheap, and has revealed a 

staggering array of biological diversity and metabolic potential that scientists have only 

scratched the surface of being able to understand. Synthetic biology tools and 

methods, advances in biological imaging technologies, and high performance 

computing-aided analysis have opened doors to new discoveries regarded as 

impossible only a generation ago. The promise is great, but the process of 

programming biology is still slow, expensive, and lacks tools, facilities and other 

platforms that are publicly available to researchers broadly. My testimony will focus on 

the opportunity and challenge of democratizing engineering biology in a way that will 

unleash the power of America's research biologists at universities, national laboratories 

and in industry. 

Although genome sequencing has accelerated at an impressive pace as a consequence 

of the Human Genome Sequencing Project, advances in genetic engineering have not 

kept pace in allowing scientists to concomitantly benefit from this wealth of genome 

sequence information to create public benefit. As I mentioned, biological engineering 

is still relatively slow. It can take years to engineer simple microbes to produce desired 

products and even longer to engineer plants to be more productive, resilient crops. 

And because of the competitive landscape, I know from firsthand experience having 

worked in industry, that when a company makes a significant advance and creates new 

products through engineering biology it is often reticent to share the tools and 

technologies it has developed- naturally, it wants to maintain its competitive 

advantage. This means that those who follow often must spend time and money 

solving problems that have already been solved by others. 

However, new emerging technologies such as synthetic biology and gene-editing, 

combined with powerful computation capabilities, promise to advance scientists' ability 

to engineer biology. As you will hear from other members of this panel, researchers 

now have the capability to create novel applications that were previously unimaginable 

across a broad variety of national and societal needs. The challenge is to create an 

ecosystem in which these new capabilities (expertise, tools, facilities, methods, 

knowledge) are widely available, easy to access, and domain neutral. meaning they can 

be used for a wide variety of desired purposes. 

New engineering-biology research platforms promise to greatly accelerate the 

discovery of solutions to national and global needs, and in the process democratize 

engineering biology to enable researchers everywhere to drive advancement across 

fields and industrial applications. An excellent model for such democratic research 

platforms exists in the national laboratories, where national user facilities allow any 

researcher in academia, government, and industry to competitively apply to utilize and 

3 
15 

benefit from a broad range of world leading scientific instrumentation and expertise, 

from genome sequencing, to high performance supercomputing, to the world's most 

powerful electron microscopes, provided through support from the federal 

government. 

Currently missing from the collection of national laboratory user facilities is a 

biofoundry: a high-throughput, open, public engineering-biology facility powered by 

capabilities in physical sciences and supercomputing to develop freely available tools, 

technologies, and knowledge needed to drive a sustainable national bioeconomy. 

Such a facility could accelerate scientific discovery, reduce costs, and cut the time to 

market for new bioproducts needed to transform energy, agricultural and industrial 

manufacturing processes for human and environmental benefit. It would build on and 

capture a greater return on DOE's existing investments in genome sequencing, 

synthetic biology, and other engineering biology research capabilities. A major asset of 

such an effort would be an open and public knowledge repository available to all 

research sectors interested in effectively engineering biology for useful purposes. 

Berkeley lab has made an initial investment to launch a prototype of an open 

biofoundry to address this unmet need, and has undertaken early proof-of-concept 

work to create bio-based products using novel technologies. The effort is aimed at 

establishing a robust, democratic platform technology for the engineering of biology 

for a wide variety of desired purposes. This effort will also create a public 

knowledgebase envisioned to provide the fundamental advances needed to transform 

manufacturing to accelerate the creation of biological solutions to national needs such 

as reducing energy intensity and negative environmental impacts of traditional 

manufacturing. 

Ensuring that the nation has a well-trained workforce in engineering-biology is another 

critical reason to democratize all aspects of the field - including education and 

workforce training. To address this need, Berkeley Lab has also launched a workforce 

initiative to collaborate with individual community colleges and national organizations 

to further incorporate biological engineering and biomanufacturing into community 

college curricula and programs, and to promote undergraduate research for making 

renewable fuels and chemicals. Approximately 75 community colleges across the 

country have biomanufacturing programs and are engaged in conversations now with 

Berkeley lab, and in the near future, the Berkeley lab will make biological tools 

available for students to manufacture renewable fuels and chemicals and create new 

industrial production organisms. These efforts provide opportunities for community 

college students to do exciting cutting-edge research with advanced technologies, and 

valuable experience to enhance employment and career prospects. 

4 
16 

In addition to technological and workforce challenges, economic challenges have 

inhibited the acceleration of biomanufacturing for both large and small companies. The 

so-called production organism is regarded as the most important determinant of the 

economics of the biological production process, and bioprocessing facilities represent 

the largest capital expense for a company. A 2015 National Research Council report, 

entitled Industrialization of Biology, recognized that the biomanufacturing of products 

is poised to greatly expand in scale and scope if future advances in feedstocks, 

production organisms, and fermentation and processing are realized. A federallycoordinated and strategic engineering biology initiative perhaps like the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative, could not only help solve several of the fundamental 

research challenges that impede the expansion of biomanufacturing but also address 

some of the significant economic challenges in the process. 

How can the national laboratories help? Recent industry listening sessions held by 

Berkeley Lab indicate that in addition to user facilities, national laboratories can serve 

at least four unique and important functions for industry. First, many companies 

currently involved in biomanufacturing have expressed concerns that they face specific 

research challenges, such as the lack of suitable production organisms or readily 

available software solutions, that are considered "off-mission" by investors yet are 

likely to greatly accelerate the success of "on-mission" efforts. National laboratories 

could address such industry needs by creating and curating a diverse array of novel 

"domesticated" production organisms and freely available software solutions to greatly 

expand industry opportunities for engineering biology toward biomanufacturing. 

Second, possible applications of published research from the academic sector must be 

carefully validated by companies before they can be usefully integrated into standard 

operating procedures, a process that is often time-consuming for companies and 

frequently unproductive. National laboratories could establish biological engineering 

validation platforms with standardized assurances and certifications that could greatly 

reduce company external technology validation timelines. 

Third, because traditional manufacturing of some products involves the use of toxic 

solvents and high temperatures, which are energy intensive and result in significant 

greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous waste, many large companies are 

considering moving from traditional manufacturing toward biomanufacturing to reach 

corporate sustainability goals. However, a transition from traditional to 

biomanufacturing faces many hurdles, including significant capital expenditures and 

lack of technical expertise in-house. Without human capital having technical expertise 

capable of successfully driving such a transition, investors are wary if not unsupportive. 

National laboratories are already beginning to respond to this challenge by providing 

opportunities for companies to "embed" industry researchers for purposes of 

5 
17 

transferring engineering biology technologies and expertise directly to companies 

through hands-on training to forge industry capacity in biological engineering. 

Fourth, companies agree that fermentation process scale-up is a major challenge and 

potential hurdle to production of chemicals and fuels. Successfully predicting 

production organism performance across scales - from microtiter to shake flasks to 

small fermenters to production scale fermentation -remains an aspiration, achieved 

likely only via intensive interdisciplinary efforts involving chemical engineering, cell 

physiology, automation, statistics, and modeling. Understanding the basic biological 

principles of "the science of scale" is an undertaking likely characterized as "offmission" by corporate investors but perhaps well suited for national laboratories, 

especially those with existing flexible pilot scale fermentation facilities and 

supercomputing and modeling capabilities such as Berkeley Lab. 

To fully realize the potential of biomanufacturing through the creation of robust 

engineering biology platforms, the development of measurement infrastructure is 

imperative. Standards, reference data, predictive models and other forms of 

biometrology will enable the types of predictability, specialization, interoperability, and 

reliability central to other manufacturing settings to fuel commerce from engineering 

biology. Berkeley Lab has engaged the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) as a partner in its prototype biofoundry efforts, and appreciates that NIST's 

leadership in the development of standards and metrology for biomanufacturing and 

risk-assessment in evaluating new biotechnologies will help forge a responsible path 

forward. 

I applaud the committee for its interest in the topic of engineering biology and believe 

that a vision for a strong long-term research and development program, including 

research in the ethical, environmental, and social aspects of engineering biology, is 

needed for the U.S. now that biology is at this critical inflection point. In the way that 

the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 provided for 

strong interdisciplinary nanot(;!chnology research that included societal, ethical, and 

environmental concerns, the nation could similarly benefit from a research initiative that 

paves a path toward real-time technology assessment engaging in fundamental, 

problem-oriented research on the broad-ranging implications of these new 

engineering biology technologies. It is critical that research in this area explore 

responsible innovation and ways in which engineering biology research responds to, 

creates, and interacts with social and ethical issues. In addition, the provision for 

technical expertise to inform the development of guidelines and safeguards for new 

products, processes, and systems of engineering biology will lay a solid foundation on 

which to build a robust and responsible biomanufacturing future. 

6 
18 

In conclusion, I would like to briefly raise the issue of America's competitive standing 

internationally in advancing engineering biology for national needs. Many countries 

such as the UK and other European nations have developed roadmaps that will guide 

their investment decisions in a coordinated and efficient manner. Also, in October of 

this year, over 60 science and technology ministers from around the world met in Korea 

to discuss the development of global science and technology innovations, and the 

resultant declaration invited the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development to explore innovation policy frameworks needed for the "next 

production revolution", a large part of which is expected to involve biomanufacturing 

solutions around the world. The federal government must help to ensure the nation's 

leadership in advanced biosciences by developing a more cohesive, coordinated and 

aggressive initiative. A focused and coordinated national engineering biology initiative 

would help drive U.S. leadership in biomanufacturing, enable new fundamental 

discoveries, deliver solutions to national challenges, and fuel the U.S. bioeconomy. 

Thank you. 

7 
19 

Dr. Mary Maxon is the Biosciences Principal Deputy at Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Previously, she was Assistant Director for Biological Research at the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the 

President where she was the principal author of The National Bioeconomy Blueprint. 

Before moving to OSTP, Dr. Maxon ran the Marine Microbiology Initiative at the 

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which supports the application of state-of-theart molecular approaches to the field of marine microbiology with the goal of 

developing comprehensive models to detect and validate environmentally-induced 

changes in marine microbial ecosystems. Prior to that, Dr. Maxon served as Deputy 

Vice Chair at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where she researched 

and drafted intellectual property policies for California stern cell grantees in the nonprofit and for-profit research sectors. Previously, she was Associate Director and Antiinfective Program Leader for Cytokinetics, a biotechnology company in South San 

Francisco. Her biotechnology experience also includes a position at Microbia, Inc., 

based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she contributed to the discovery and 

development of the Precision Engineering technology for production of commercial 

products from microorganisms using metabolic engineering. Dr. Maxon received her 

Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in Molecular Cell Biology, and did 

postdoctoral research in biochemistry and genetics at the University of California, San 

Francisco. 

8 
20 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Doctor. 

And Mr. Lipinski has now joined us so I’m just going to take a 

little break here on the witness testimony and allow Congressman 

Lipinski to give his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock. And I thank 

the witnesses for being willing to deal with this little interruption 

here. I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this hearing and 

look forward to—I thank Dr. Maxon for her testimony and look forward to all the testimony here this morning. 

One of the reasons I chose to be on the Science Committee, and 

on this subcommittee in particular, is that we have the opportunity 

to learn firsthand about new and emerging research fields and 

technologies that will transform society and to hear what the federal government can do to help society benefit from these technologies. 

This morning is no different. Today, we will hear about new technologies that have the potential to transform the energy, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors. A number of these new biotechnologies are based in engineering biology research, which is research at the intersection of biology, physical sciences, engineering, 

and information technology. This emerging field has been fueled by 

the development and increased affordability of technology such as 

DNA sequencing and DNA synthesis. 

In the case of DNA sequencing, the Human Genome Project, an 

international research project to sequence the human genome, was 

coordinated by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, and it took over a decade and cost $2.7 billion. Remarkably, sequencing the human genome now costs less than 

$1,500. 

Federal agencies under this committee’s jurisdiction have significant programs in engineering biology. The Department of Energy 

has invested in programs focused on bioenergy. The National 

Science Foundation has invested in this area both in individual research awards and through their support of an engineering research center, Synberc at UC Berkeley. 

NASA and NIST also have programs in this area. NIST has a 

particularly important role in the development of technical standards for a future biomanufacturing economy. And of course, agencies outside the Committee’s jurisdiction, including DARPA, NIH, 

and the Department of Agriculture, are also significant players in 

this research. 

Due to the importance of this growing research field, the Nation 

would benefit not just from increased investment at individual 

agencies but also from coordination of federal efforts under some 

kind of national plan or strategy. 

Additionally, we should ensure that we are facilitating public-private partnerships. Given the potential commercial applications 

across nearly all sectors of our economy, there is a need to engage 

and encourage private sector collaboration at a pre-competitive 

level. I look forward to hearing from all of our private sector witnesses what they are looking for in partnerships with federal agencies, national labs, and universities. 

And finally, we must pay careful attention to the issues of 

human and environmental safety and ethics when it comes to engi-
21 

neering biology research, including support of research on these 

topics. 

The future of biotechnology could include automotive and even 

jet fuels produced cheaply, cleanly, and safely by specifically engineered bacteria, also, more drought- and pest-tolerant crops and 

feedstocks, and also, transformation of materials manufacturing 

with applications across our economy. These technologies would 

have significant economic benefit for the United States. So it is important that we make the necessary federal investments in the 

foundational research and partner with the private sector across 

the potential application areas. 

I look forward to the rest of the witness testimony and the Q&A, 

and I thank you for being here today. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
22 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

"The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and Manufacturing" 

December 8, 2015 

Thank you Chairwoman Comstock for holding this hearing on the future of 

biotechnology. I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning. I look forward 

to your testimony. 

One of the reasons I chose to be on the Science Committee and this Subcommittee in 

particular is that we have the opportunity to learn firsthand about new and emerging research 

fields and technologies that will transform society, and to hear what the federal government can 

do to help society benefit from these technologies. This morning is no different. Today we will 

hear about new technologies that have the potential to transform the energy, agricultural, and 

manufacturing sectors. 

A number of these new biotechnologies are based in engineering biology research, which 

is research at the intersection of biology, the physical sciences, engineering, and information 

technology. This emerging field has been fueled by the development and increased affordability 

of technologies such as DNA sequencing and DNA synthesis. In the case of DNA sequencing, 

the Human Genome Project, an international research project to sequence the human genome 

that was coordinated by the Department of Energy and National Institutes of Health, took over a 

decade and cost 2.7 billion dollars. Remarkably, sequencing the human genome now cost less 

than 1500 dollars. 

Several agencies under this Committee's jurisdiction have significant programs in 

engineering biology. The Department of Energy has invested in programs focused on bioenergy. 

The National Science Foundation has invested in this area both in individual research awards and 

through their support of an engineering research center, SynBERC, at U.C. Berkeley. NASA 

and NIST also have programs in this area. NIST has a particularly important role in the 

development of technical standards for a future bio-manufacturing economy. And of course 

agencies outside the Committee's jurisdiction, including DARPA, NIH, and the Department of 

Agriculture are also significant players in this research. Due to the importance of this growing 
23 

research field, the nation would benefit not just from increased investment at individual agencies, 

but also from coordination of federal efforts under some kind of national plan or strategy. 

Additionally, we should en~ure that we are facilitating public-private partnerships. Given 

the potential commercial applications across nearly all sectors of our economy, there is a need to 

engage and encourage private sector collaboration at a pre-competitive level. I look forward to 

hearing from our private sector witnesses what they are looking for in partnerships with federal 

agencies, national labs, and universities. 

And finally we must pay careful attention to issues of human and environmental safety 

and ethics when it comes to engineering biology research, including through support of research 

on these topics. 

The future ofbiotechnology could include automotive and even jet fuels produced 

cheaply, cleanly, and safely by specially engineered bacteria, more drought and pest-tolerant 

crops and feedstocks, and a transformation of materials and manufacturing with applications 

across our economy. These technologies would have significant economic benefit for the United 

States, so it is important that we make the necessary federal investments in the foundational 

research and partner with the private sector across the potential application areas. 

I look forward to all of the witness testimony and the Q&A, and I thank you all for being 

here today. I yield back the balance of my time. 
24 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

And I’ll now recognize Dr. Evans for his five minute testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVE EVANS, 

FELLOW, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, 

DOW AGROSCIENCES 

Dr. EVANS. Good morning, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking 

Member Lipinski, and Members of the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology. Thank you and—for inviting me here to 

represent my company Dow AgroSciences in this hearing on emerging biotechnology applications. 

We trace our roots in agriculture back 60 years, and we emerge 

from the Dow Chemical Company, a company that has been transforming technology into viable solutions since 1897. 

The drivers for application of biotechnology into agriculture are 

clear. The global demands for food, fuel, fiber, and feed are strong 

and rising. The solutions to meet this global need must be met 

within increasing constraints and unpredictability, reinforcing the 

need to make newer product offerings even more sustainable. 

We have all heard of the challenge set forth for global needs by 

2050, and between now and that point in time, agriculture will 

need to produce more food than the sum total of what has been 

produced in the last 10,000 years. Since their introduction in the 

mid-1990s, agriculture biotechnology offerings have made significant contributions to global food security, and biotechnology-based 

crops are the fastest-adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture. 

If you were to visit an early-stage laboratory in—R&D laboratory 

in Dow AgroSciences, you would see the tools and techniques that 

are used in common bioscience endeavors. Early-stage ag biotechnology benefits from the same molecular biology, 

bioinformatics, DNA sequencing, high-throughput analytical systems, and other advances from basic life sciences that have been 

funded by federal research. 

One of the ways that Dow AgroSciences has benefitted from advances in related fields is by being able to provide input and shape 

ideas for technology in something like the NSF engineering research centers. Synberc, as has already been mentioned, brings together 37 professors, 18 universities, and 47 companies with the 

stated mission of making biology easier to engineer. As past Chair 

of that Industrial Advisory Board, I note that a portion of the companies they are represent established ag companies but also smaller startups with concepts in the agricultural space. 

The RC provides a unique precompetitive venue for industry participation and influence in the technology development. And some 

of the tools that have been developed there are now being brought 

into our company directly and used by Dow AgroSciences. I recently examined some patent activity by other ag players, and you 

can see that those technologies are being broadly adopted at the 

early stages of most of the agricultural companies. 

But to really understand and develop a realistic expectation for 

when these things would appear in agricultural products, you’d 

have to understand a little bit about biotechnology development 

timelines. A typical range of development spans seven to ten years 
25 

and an average investment price tag of over $130 million per product. While laboratory tools and technologies just described play an 

important role in performing and accelerating that front end, we 

are still faced with multiple challenges at national and international regulatory frameworks. 

Companies can understand and manage the risks related to product performance and customer choice. However, because of the time 

horizon of nearly a decade and a cost of $100 million, to make informed investment decisions, we need to have a regulatory approval process that is predictable to enable scientific planning. 

That regulatory process needs to be science-based and proportionate to risk. 

In addition to using biotechnology for modern crops, we have an 

offering in Dow AgroSciences that is based on agrochemicals derived from natural products. We—taken together, products and 

chemistries that are inspired by natural products account for 1/4 

of the global ag chemistry sales. One challenge in developing those 

natural products, whether for farm or ag, is that we need to attain 

sufficient productivity to make that product economically viable. 

Dow AgroSciences platform to integrate those biotechnology 

tools, either from external sources or from internal capabilities 

aimed at rational engineering of our strains is how we use engineering biology in our platform. Nationally funded research has enabled key milestones in that field, but the United States is not 

alone in recognizing the economic and environmental benefit to be 

derived from commercial manufacturing of novel natural products 

or chemistries inspired by them. 

So finally, I will propose that a framework for involvement of the 

federal government can be understood in terms of three C’s. Number one, continue to support exceptional science; number two, convene forums for discussion on development and risk-proportionate 

oversight; and number three, create a strategic vision for the 

United States biotechnology investments to produce exceptional solutions for the world’s most pressing needs. 

These actions are important to maintain the United States’ position of leadership and development in this technology, and it’s an 

increasingly competitive and global race. Within these fields, these 

investments provide technology, a workforce of new skill talent and 

predictable science-based regulatory framework from which companies like ours can make informed investment decisions for products 

taking over a decade to bring to market. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Evans follows:] 
26 

Testamony 

Dr. Steven L Evans 

Fellow, Dow AgroSciences 

The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture and Manufacturing 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

December 8, 2015 

Good morning Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking-Member Lipinski, and Members of the 

House SubCommittee on Research and Technology. 

Thank you for inviting me to represent my company, Dow AgroSciences, in this hearing 

on emerging biotechnology applications. We trace our roots in agriculture back 60 

years and emerged from within The Dow Chemical Company- a company that has 

been transforming technology into viable product solutions since 1897. 

The drivers for application of biotechnology to agriculture are clear. The global 

demands for food, feed, fiber and fuel are strong and rising. The solutions to meet this 

global need must be met within increasing constraints and unpredictability, reinforcing 

the need to make newer product offerings even more sustainable. We have all heard 

the challenge set forth for global needs in 2050. To meet the global need in 2050, 

agriculture will need to produce more food in this timeframe than the sum total of what it 

has produced in the last 10,000 years. Since their introduction in the mid-1990's 

agricultural biotechnology offerings have made significant contributions to global food 

security, and a long term reviewer of the field argues that biotechnology-based crops 

are the fasted adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture. 

If you were to visit the early stage R&D laboratories at Dow AgroSciences, you would 

see tools and techniques in use that are common to other bioscience endeavors. Early 

stage Ag biotechnology research benefits from the same molecular biology, 

bioinformatics, DNA sequencing, high throughput analytical systems and other tools that 

benefit labs involved in basic life sciences to biopharma. For this reason, we are able 

to directly incorporate many of the advances in basic life science development funded 

by federal research. 

One of the ways that Dow AgroSciences has benefited from advances in related fields, 

and helped provide industry input to shape outcomes, is by participation in NSF 

Engineering Research Centers, or ERCs. The SynBERC ERC brings together 37 
27 

professors in 18 universities with 47 companies with the stated mission "to make biology 

easier to engineer". As past Chair of the Industrial Advisory Board I can affirm that a 

portion of the participating companies represent both established agricultural entities 

and startups with concepts in the agricultural space. The ERC has provided a unique 

pre-competitive venue to allow both industry participation and influence in technology 

development. Some of the inventions and technologies created by the universities 

within SynBERC are already present in offerings by several tool and technology 

suppliers and are used by Dow AgroSciences today in our research. From an 

examination of recent patent activity by large agricultural biotechnology companies, it is 

clear that such tools and technologies are being broadly adopted in the early R&D 

efforts disclosed by patent applications. But to form a realistic expectation for the 

timeline for appearance of such technology in products, it is important to understand the 

general Ag biotech development timeline. 

The typical range of development spans 7-12 years and comes at an average 

investment price tag of over $130 million per product. While the laboratory tools and 

technologies just described play an important role in performing and even accelerating 

the front end of developing products we still face multiple challenges within the national 

and international regulatory framework. Companies understand and can manage risks 

related to product performance and customer choice. However, because our time 
28 

horizon is approximately a decade and the cost of development well over $100 million, 

to make informed investment decisions we need to have an regulatory approval process 

that is predictable to enable realistic planning. The regulatory process needs to be 

science based and proportionate to risk. 

We can illustrate potential impact of this uncertainty by considering an area of very 

active research, development and federal investment today which has roots dating to 

the 1980s. Recent advances in tools and technologies allow researchers to understand 

the microbes associated with other living organisms to a degree simply-not possible 

even five years ago. These are the so-called microbiomes. Most famous are human 

microbiomes, but plants, insects and other systems relevant to agriculture have 

associated microbial communities. The recent "Report of the Fast-Track Action 

Committee on Mapping the Microbiome"1 identified $300 million in annual funding for 

this area, with some research already aimed at agriculturally or environmentally relevant 

areas. The ability to understand and ultimately positively manipulate these naturallyoccurring microbial communities could have profound effects on plant or insect health. 

Early stage academic researchers are obviously interested in using biotechnology tools 

to manipulate these microbial communities to improve their agricultural utility. 

However, my personal history in this area dates back to small biotech companies in the 

late 1980's and early 1990's which sought to do just this- use what was then the 

newest tools of biotechnology to manipulate plant associated bacteria for new 

agronomic properties- only on a much smaller scale than currently being investigated. 

Half dozen or more companies were engaged in developing products for the agricultural 

or environmental space utilizing genetically engineered plant associated microbes. The 

pathway through the regulatory environment for deliberate release of live, engineered 

microbes was uncharted. My company, Mycogen Corporation, solved the problem by 

developing an industrial scale technology to kill the engineered microbes after 

fermentation, thus releasing a formulation containing dead microbes as the ultimate 

product. While successful for a particular purpose, the real benefit from such products 

would have been maximized if they were able to be released as live microbes. 

Nearly 25 years later, there are still few if any examples of commercial products 

destined for environmental release based on live, genetically engineered 

microorganisms. And so, cutting edge research being funded today in the area of 

agriculturally or environmentally relevant microbial communities will undoubtedly 

produce intriguing and impactful product concepts that could be critical components of a 

sustainable agricultural offering in the ramp up to 2050 (for instance, by increasing 

nutrient availability, impacting soil fertility, improving plant vigor). However, these 

1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/ftac-mm report final 112015 O.pdf 
29 

product concepts likely will not be adopted and commercialized because of regulatory 

approval uncertainties or excessive regulation that is not proportionate to risk if there is 

not a parallel investment in developing and publishing new, fundamental research 

assessing scientific questions related to deliberate release of engineered microbes 

which is informed by the experiences of the past 25-30 years. 

In addition to using biotechnology to develop modern crops that are offered to the 

farmer, Dow AgroSciences is a leader in commercializing agrochemicals derived from 

natural products. These are substances produced by organisms and are important 

products because they have benefit to the farmer or other producers in the Ag value 

chain. Taken together, products and chemistries inspired or derived from natural 

products account for one quarter of global Ag chemical sales. Historically one challenge 

in developing natural products, whether for pharma or for Ag, is attaining sufficient 

productivity in fermentation to make the process economically viable. Another is 

genetically engineering the organisms to increase their production of the intended 

organic substance, again at an economically viable level. Today the advanced 

techniques being developed and deployed to tackle these challenges stem from the 

field of engineering biology. Dow AgroSciences' platform to integrate biotech tools from 

both external sources and internal capabilities is aimed at rationally engineering our 

strains to solve these productivity challenges. Nationally funded research has enabled 

key technological milestones in this field, but the United States is not alone in 

recognizing the economic and environmental benefits to be derived from commercial 

manufacturing of novel natural products or of chemistry inspired by them. Unlike the 

biotech concepts destined for direct release into the environment, here the engineered 

organisms are designed for use in contained fermentation facilities. The timelines for 

commercialization are still surprisingly similar in length than previously described for 

biotech crops (around a decade) but the investment cost is over $250 million. 
30 

Finally, I will propose that a framework for involvement of the Federal government can 

be understood in terms of Three C's. 1) Qontinue to support exceptional science, 2) 

Qonvene forums for discussion on development and risk-proportionate oversight, and 3) 

Qreate a strategic vision to ensure U.S. biotechnology investments produce exceptional 

solutions for the world's most pressing needs. These actions are important to maintain 

aU. S. position of leadership in development and application of this technology in an 

increasingly competitive, global race. Within our field, these investments help provide 

technology, a workforce of new skilled talent and a predictable, science based 

regulatory framework from which companies like ours can make informed investment 

decisions for products taking over a decade to bring to market. 

Thank you. 

National Needs- Three C's 

National scientific funding agencies: 

U1at foundatmnal for brotechno!ogy 

public 

> Conw:me forums for discussion on development and oversight to indudB public 

engagement. d1a!ogue outreach and educat1on 

Dr;n~Jrng soerce tv pub!ic 

can dnve new research pro.grarns p;ov!dmg SCienu~ bHsed. proportionate nsk ar.alys1s 

> b1otechno!ogy investments movn m direction 
31 

Steven L. Evans, Ph.D. 

Fellow, Dow AgroSciences Seeds Discovery 

Steve received B.A. and B.S. degrees in Chemistry and Microbiology, respectively, from 

the University of Mississippi in 1981 where he was an NSF Undergraduate Research 

awardee in natural products analytical chemistry. He completed a Ph.D. in Microbial 

Physiology from the University of Mississippi Medical Center in 1985 with an emphasis 

on trace metal metabolism and siderophore production. Subsequently he was an NIH 

Post-doctoral Fellow in the Department of Chemistry at the University of California, 

Berkeley exploring bidentate siderophores as analogs for transferrin. All of the work up 

to the postdoctoral project was focused on biomedical applications and was crossdisciplinary in scope, usually blending high resolution chemical analysis with 

enzymology. 

Steve opted for a second Post-doc at the USDA National Lab in Peoria to enter into 

agricultural applications of biotechnology with a focus on rumina! anaerobes. From 

there he joined Mycogen Corporation in 1988 and joined Dow AgroSciences in the 

acquisition in 1997. At Mycogen he lead development of a novel bacterial herbicide for 

grass weeds, co-discovered fatty acid based synergists for glyphosate now used in 

consumer lawn and garden glyphosate formulations. A primary technology focus was 

developing the bioanalytical infrastructure for the CellcapTM recombinant biopesticide 

product line. 

Since joining Dow AgroSciences Steve has been involved in development of several 

traits stemming from the Mycogen pipeline (cry1 F, cry34/35) and in capability 

development in bioanalytical sciences. In his current role as a Fellow at Dow 

AgroSciences, Steve continues to help identify and acquire differentiating bioanalytical 

capabilities and to enable EXZACPM Zinc Finger technology. He is also past chair of 

Dow AgroSciences Fellows Organization. Externally he is active in the precompetitive 

area of synthetic biology technology development and has functioned as past chair of 

the Industrial Advisory Board of the SynBERC synthetic biology consortium funded by 

the NSF and co-chair of the BIO Organization IES synthetic biology subteam. 

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL 
32 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you, Dr. Evans. 

Now, I will recognize Dr. Shetty for a five minute statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. RESHMA SHETTY, 

CO-FOUNDER, GINKGO BIOWORKS 

Dr. SHETTY. Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on the future 

of biotechnology and its applications in energy and agriculture and 

manufacturing. My name is Reshma Shetty, and I’m a co-Founder 

and President of Ginkgo Bioworks, a biotechnology startup in Boston, Massachusetts. I hold a Ph.D. in biological engineering from 

MIT and have been active in the field of biological engineering for 

over 10 years. 

Today, I was asked to testify a little bit about Ginkgo’s story as 

a case study for how federal investment in emerging technologies 

can stimulate the growth of new companies and new industries and 

make recommendations for how the U.S. Government can continue 

to stimulate the growth of the domestic biotechnology industry. 

Ginkgo is an organism company. We design and build microbes 

such as yeast to spec for customers. Our customers use Ginkgo microbes in fermentation. Fermentation is a process by which cooking 

is done with microbes rather than heat. Humans have been fermenting foods and beverages like yogurt, beer, and wine for more 

than 9,000 years, so it’s a very old technology. 

At Ginkgo we design yeast to make new products from fermentation or what we call cultured products. Our first commercial organisms are microbes for the production of cultured ingredients, so 

ingredients end up in household consumer goods, things like sweeteners, flavors, fragrances, vitamins. So, for example, Gingko is developing a yeast to produce a rose fragrance, what we call a cultured rose. Other companies are making cultured products such as 

animal-free cultured leather, animal-free cultured meat, cultured 

milk, cultured silk for making jackets, and so on. 

I started Ginkgo in 2008 with four fellow MIT Ph.D.’s, including 

Tom Knight, who is widely considered to be a father of the field 

of synthetic biology. Quite frankly, at the time I knew almost nothing about what it took to start and run a company. What I did 

know was that biological technologies were going to be incredibly 

important in this century, and I had ideas about what were the important technologies to be working on and developing. 

Federal grants and contracts from the NSF SBIR program, DOE 

ARPA–E, NIST, and DARPA all provided absolutely critical funding for Ginkgo in our early days as we transitioned from MIT and 

university life to the real world. Today, we’ve raised more than $50 

million of private investment, have built an 18,000 square foot facility in Boston for manufacturing of microbes, and we have commercial contracts for more than 20 different cultured ingredients. 

In the last 6 months we’ve doubled our workforce and more than 

1/4 of which actually live in the 5th District of Massachusetts and 

are represented by Congresswoman Clark. In short, your investments help make Ginkgo what it is today. 

In the early days of the computer industry, the U.S. Government 

played a critical role in nurturing the nascent industry through 
33 

both R&D funding and through serving as an early customer for 

integrated circuits via the Apollo program. This federal investment 

was critical in creating demand for integrated circuits and stimulated a significant later private investment in this space. The computer industry would not be the major economic and job engine for 

the U.S. economy that it is today if it weren’t for the U.S. Government’s role. 

I believe that the U.S. Government has an opportunity to play 

a similar role in the emerging biological engineering industry. 

Ginkgo itself is evidence of the payoff that the federal R&D investments can generate, and I urge you to build on these early R&D 

investments in this space by recognizing the importance of the U.S. 

Government as an early adopter of biotechnology products. 

With countries like the United Kingdom and China having wellcoordinated national programs in this area, the United States is at 

risk for losing its competitive edge. By serving as an early customer and stimulating demand for the products of biotechnology, 

the U.S. Government could play a central role to biotechnology 

today, as it did in the 1960s to the computer industry. 

In short, I suggest that the Committee 1) enhance U.S. competitiveness in biotechnology via direct R&D funding for public domain 

foundational technologies that are available for all to use without 

intellectual property restrictions; 2) continue to garner bipartisan 

support for H.R. 591 to establish a national engineering biology research and development program; and 3) recognize the importance 

of the U.S. Government as an early customer for biologically engineered products. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shetty follows:] 
34 

Written Testimony of: 

Reshma Shetty 

Co-Founder & President, Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. 

Before the: 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Future of Biotechnology: Energy, Agriculture, and Manufacturing 

08 December 2015 

Chairman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinksi, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, I thank you for the opportunity to testifY before you 

today on the future of biotechnology and its applications for energy, agriculture, and 

manufacturing. 

I am Reshma Shetty, co-founder and President of Ginkgo Bioworks. I hold a Ph.D. in Biological 

Engineering from MIT and have been active in the field of biotechnology for over 10 years. I 

would like to provide an overview of Ginkgo Bioworks along with synopsis of the science 

behind biological engineering. I will focus my testimony on two key areas relating to U.S. 

biotechnology: 

L The importance of Federal funding for realizing the commercial and economic potential 

of biotechnology in the United States. 

2. Current and future biotechnology applications. 

Before I discuss these key issues, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its continued 

leadership and advocacy for the National Science Foundation. Without the NSF's support, it is 

likely that I would not be here before you today. 

• An NSF STEM fellowship supported my own graduate education. 

• NSF grants provided early critical support to both the iGEM competition an 

international intercollegiate competition in synthetic biology which has grown from 5 

U.S. teams to more than 250 teams representing over 32 countries and to SynBERC- a 

major U.S. research consortium in synthetic biology. Together, iGEM and SynBERC 

have directly or indirectly educated a significant share of the U.S. workforce in synthetic 

biology including myself. 

Finally, in 2015, Ginkgo raised more than $50M in private capital. This fundraising was 

only possible because of the early investments made by Federally-funded research 

awards from NSF, DOE ARPA-E, NIST and DOE ARPA-E in Ginkgo Bioworks. 

Ginkgo Bioworks was founded in 2008 by a team of 5 MIT PhDs, including Tom Knight who is 

widely considered to be the father of synthetic biology. We now employ 50 people; 13 of whom 

reside in Congresswoman Clark's 5th District of Massachusetts. Ginkgo Bioworks is the 

organism company: we design and license microbes such as yeast to customers. These microbes 

can create a wide variety of products that are either costly or inaccessible through conventional 

manufacturing techniques. Analogous to the microelectronics industry, we use a centralized 
35 

factory or foundry for microbe design and fabrication. Our first foundry is Bioworks l: a highly 

automated, 18,000 square foot facility in Boston, Massachusetts. Ginkgo currently has more 

than 20 microorganisms under contract with a variety of customers including Fortune 50 

companies. 

Synopsis of the science 

Fermentation is a process by which cooking is done with microbes rather than heat. 

Fermentation is a deep part of most cultures: beer, wine, cheese, yogurt, bread, coffee and 

chocolate all involve microbes. We can use the tools of biotechnology our ability to read and 

write DNA - to study fermentation and to design microbes to make new products from 

fermentation. We call these new products "cultured products" and they include new ingredients 

like sweeteners, flavors, fragrances, new foods such as animal-free meat and milk and new 

materials like silk and leather. 

New and emerging technologies Ginkgo is developing or supporting 

To date, much of biological research 

has been done in what is effectively an 

artisanal process. Apprentices study for 

years under a master to learn the 

techniques and approaches needed to 

perform biological research. Indeed, 

technically skilled biologists are often 

said to have "good hands." At Ginkgo, 

we take an engineer's approach to 

biological design. We apply software, 

automation and standardization to the 

process of microbe design and 

fabrication. This spring, we launched 

our first foundry for organism design 

called Bioworksl. Bioworksl Figure I: Ginkgo Bioworks' organism foundry: Bioworksl 

automates what are traditionally by hand processes required for biological engineering through 

the use of integrated software and hardware. Thus, we seek to usher in a new kind of 

manufacturing: mrumfacturing for the design and construction of microbes to spec for customers. 

Bioworksl is the first generation of Ginkgo's organism engineering foundry. We are currently in 

the process of building a second foundry-Bioworks2 which is scheduled for completion in 

2016. We have adopted Intel's chip fabrication facility philosophy; when a new wafer is 

invented, a new fabrication facility is built as opposed to shutting down and reconfiguring the 

existing fabs. By allowing the existing fabrication facilities continue to operate Intel increases 

their total prodnction capacity with each new chip. Bioworks2 will be twice as large as 

Bioworksl and will scale and improve upon our existing capabilities. Ginkgo already has plans 

for Bioworks3 in place. Each new foundry both expands our domestic organism manufacturing 

capabilities and spurs job creation in a wide variety of professional fields from construction to 

science. 
36 

Current or potential practical applications 

Ginkgo is actively working with various governmental and commercial entities on several 

applications for biotechnology including: 

Cultured ingredients: The 2014 global flavors and fragrance market was worth an estimated 

$27.5 billion 1 and will continue to grow as more people enter the middle class. The U.S. can 

capture that market with cultured ingredients. By engineering yeast strains to produce the desired 

ingredients we can move growth and manufacture processes to the United States. For example, 

Ginkgo is currently designing yeast to produce a culture rose scent. The introduction of a 

cultured rose will mark the first new rose oil on the market in 150 years. Cultured ingredients 

have several advantages over the corresponding plant extract including: 

Lower cost of goods 

Improved product consistency 

Supply stability 

Supply chain transparency 

'Unlimited' scale 

Remove allergens 

No pesticide residues 

Lower environmental impact 

Creates skilled and non-skilled labor requirements 

Probiotics: According to the CDC, "Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people 

become irifected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die 

each year as a direct result of these irifections. Many more people die from other conditions that 

were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant irifection."2 With DARPA's support, we are 

developing probiotics to prevent drug resistant bacterial infections in the gut by specifically 

preventing the acquisition of antibiotic resistance genes in the gut microbiome. This technology 

allows existing antibiotics to continue to be an effective treatment for infection and does not 

negatively effect the existing gut microbiome. 

Strain improvement: By leveraging the power ofBioworksl, Ginkgo can optimize existing 

fermentation processes. For example, we have a partnership with Ajinomoto, a global 

manufacturer of foods, beverages, amino acids, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, to 

improve their existing fermentation process. 

1 Leffingwell & Associates. 20!0- 2014 Flavor & Fragrance Industry Leaders. 

http://www.lcffingwcll.com/top IO.htm. Accessed December 4, 2015 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 

2013. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/index.html. Accessed December 3, 

2015 
37 

Role of the Federal Government in supporting, coordinating and commercializing the 

science 

The U.S. Government has long had a critical 

role in nurturing nascent industries long before 

they arc attractive to private investment. 

Historically. this has often happened via a two 

pronged strategy in which the U.S. 

Government initially provides R&D funding 

for critical, high impact technology 

development and then, as the technology 

matures, the U.S. Government serves as an 

early customer for the resulting products. As a 

result of this activity and customer demand, 

private investment begins to tlow stimulating 

the creation of a new industry. This pattern 

played out in tlK' early days of the 

microelectronics industry in which the U.S. 

Government was an early customer for 

integrated circuits via the Apollo and 

Minuteman programs. 

The U.S. Government has a similar essential 

role to play in the future of biotechnology. My 

co-founders and 1 were able to bootstrap 

Figure 2: Ginkgo founder Tom Knight (left) 

standing next to an early computer-"· a Lisp 

machine. 

Ginkgo from scratch on the basis of various federal awards from NSF, DOE ARPA-E, NIST and 

DARPA. This early U.S. Govemment R&D funding was critical to allowing us time and 

resources to refine our foundry approach to designing and fabricating microbes and build our 

business. Over the past 18 months, we've been able to raise more than $50 million in private 

investment as a result. Technology developed with NSF and DOE ARPA-E funding directly led 

to two of our commercial contracts today. 

The National Engineering Biology Research and Development Program proposed under H.R. 

591 would coordinate and streamline the Federal Government's ongoing and future R&D 

support in bioengineering. I thank for Representative Johnson for recognizing this need and 

introducing H.R.591 as well as Representatives Sensenbrenner and Peters for their cosponsorship. Bipartisan support ofthis bill is a clear sign that biological engineering R&D 

supports the national interest. 

Economic, technological or regulatory challenges or barriers to bringing the products to 

market 

Unlike with the microelectronics industry, however, the U.S. Government has thus far not been 

an early customer for the nascent synthetic biology industry. With countries like the United 

Kingdom and China having well coordinated national programs in synthetic biology, the United 

States is at risk for losing its competitive edge in this area. By serving as an early customer and 
38 

stimulating demand for the products of biotechnology, the U.S. Government could play as 

central a role to the biotechnology industry as it has in the past for integrated circuits. 

A common concern raised regarding biotechnology is whether there will be public acceptance of 

these cultured products. We are likely to see a significant shift in the public understanding of 

these technologies in the near future. The first consumer products of biotechnology are entering 

the marketplace. North Face has partnered with the Japanese biotechnology firm Spiber to 

product a winter jacket from cultured spider silk. A new generation of food tech companies are 

advancing cultured meat and cultured milk as animal-free alternatives. The U.S. Government can 

help to ensure these cultured products make it to the marketplace and are able to fairly compete 

with traditional products by encouraging the growth of domestic bio-manufacturing capacity. 

Expanding U.S.-based fermentation capacity will promote job growth and ensure that the U.S. 

reclaims its manufacturing competitiveness. 

Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc., I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to testifY on the future of biotechnology. We believe this technology provides 

new opportunities to enrich consumer experiences and broadens their purchasing options. This is 

a very exciting time for biological engineering: it has the potential to reinvigorate American 

manufacturing and drive economic growth and job creation. I would be happy to answer any 

questions from the Subcommittee. 

Thank you. 
39 

Rcshma Shelly co-founded 

synthetic biology Ginkgo 

Bioworks, Inc. in 2008. Spun out 

of MIT, Ginkgo's mission is to 

make biology easier to engineer. 

Started in a Cambridge, MA 

apartment, Rcshma has helped to 

grow the company to 50 people 

and raised $50M in financing. In 

Spring 2015, Ginkgo launched 

Bioworks l, its 18,000 square foot 

facility for design, fabrication and 

testing of custom designed 

microbes. Ginkgo is concurrently 

engineering more than 20 

organisms to spec for customers. 

Reshma has been active in the field 

of synthetic biology for 1 0+ years 

and co-organized SB l.O, the first 

international conference in 

synthetic biology in 2004. In 2005. 

Rcshma and colleagues founded 

OpcnWetWare.org, a wiki lor the 

ti·ee sharing of information among 

biological and biological 

engineering researchers. In 2006, 

she was an advisor to the 

international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition where she was best 

known for engineering backria to smell like bananas and mint. In 2008, Forbes 

magazine named Rcshma one of Eight People Inventing the Future and in 2011, Fast 

Company named her one of l 00 Most Creative People in Business. In 2014, Ginkgo 

became the first biotech company to participate in YCombinator. 

Rcshma Shctty has a B.S. degree in Computer Science from the University of Utah and a 

Ph.D. in Biological Engineering from MIT. As a graduate student. Reshma's rest:arch 

was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the 

Whitaker Graduate Fellowship in Biological Engineering and the Andrew and Edna 

Vitcrbi Fellowship in Computational Biology. As an undergraduate, Reshma was 

supported by the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship, the Beckman Undergraduate Research 

Fellowship. the Pfizer Undergraduate Research Fellowship and the University of Utah 

Presidential Scholarship. 
40 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

I now recognize Dr. Dickman for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARTIN DICKMAN, 

DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, 

INSTITUTE FOR PLANT GENOMICS 

AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Dr. DICKMAN. Thank you, and good morning, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you. 

Among other things, I am also the Director of the Norman 

Borlaug Center at Texas A&M University. I’m a plant pathologist 

specializing in fungal diseases. But I wanted to use that title as a 

prelude to just mention Dr. Borlaug, who is largely responsible for 

the development and implementation of the Green Revolution. And 

he has been widely acclaimed for this work, including such awards 

as a Nobel Prize, which is the only agriculturist to be awarded this 

honor; the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom—he’s in company 

with Mother Teresa—U.S. Congressional Gold Medal; and on and 

on and on. 

But what Dr. Borlaug represented besides breeding plants that 

had desirable attributes was a dogged determination to try to ensure his best possible of feeding people throughout the world. And 

he’s had a modicum of success with that. In fact, one of his other 

achievements is that he saved a lot of lives, but he has considered 

to have saved more lives than any other living human being ever. 

So the mission of our institute, the Institute of Plant Genomics 

and Biotechnology in the Borlaug Center, is to foster these ideals 

and progress using what’s available and these developing technologies that we’ve heard a little bit about already this morning to 

increase our understanding of how things work in the ag biotechnology space. We want to improve agronomic traits for crop 

plants, and importantly, we want to prepare young scientists with 

the necessary technical and conceptual tools to face the inevitable 

challenges that lie ahead. 

As food safety and security concerns continue and are likely to 

increase, it is clear that a new green revolution is needed. There 

is increased urbanization limiting land availability, increased water 

use and energy demands, unpredictable climate changes, coupled 

with pollution and soil erosion. When taken together collectively, 

they all contribute to a reduction in yield, and from a grower’s 

point of view, yield is certainly the bottom line. We now face the 

task of growing more food on the same or even diminishing 

amounts of land. 

So on the remainder of my time this morning I just want to highlight three biotechnological approaches that have varying degrees 

of risk but all have the potential for really, really high rewards. 

And again, because of time, I will pick and choose some of the success stories that we in the institute, as well as around the world, 

have employed to address some of these biotechnological approaches. So the three approaches I’m going to talk about is synthetic biology, which has already been mentioned; the phytobiome; 
41 

and genome editing, which you’ve heard about in the past, and 

their impact on agriculture and food production. 

So in terms of synthetic biology, I’m going to talk about a cotton 

project that we have been undertaking at—in Texas A&M. Cotton 

has a very, very high degree of protein in its seed. It’s about 25 

percent. That’s a lot. Therefore, the potential for cottonseed to help 

feed people is evident. However, the cottonseed also contains immune problems and cause male sterility, thus sort of precluding 

their application in the real world. So breeders at A&M bred out— 

very simply bred out that particular compound called gossypol so 

it was no longer present in the plant and everything looked pretty 

good. The problem was gossypol is also a defense compound in 

plants limiting insect and fungal diseases, and when you got rid of 

gossypol, the plants were basically open game to these pathogens 

and parasites, and so the operation was a success but the patient 

died. 

So how to explore this was done with some of these new techniques, which I won’t get into too much detail unless you’re interested, and that is using virus-induced gene silencing and plant— 

and genomics and synthetic biology work at A&M was able to not 

only knock the gene out that made gossypol but also direct that 

construct into the seed tissue itself. These are very nice, powerful, 

significant techniques. So now, gossypol would be expressed in the 

plant. However, it would not be expressed only in the seed. Therefore, they were gossypol-free and the seed could be produced, okay? 

To give you an idea of the scope of this, and we have sent—several patents filed and many, many field tests that have gone on 

around the world with these cotton plants is that it is estimated 

that with the addition of this cottonseed as a protein source, 500 

million more people can now be fed. So this is the kind of conclusions we would like to see more of and highlight, but it also illustrates the approaches. There was no way these experiments and 

these conclusions could have been obtained without biotechnological approaches that were implemented and have been relatively 

new on the scene. 

Now, the other sort of crop example I want to give is bananas. 

I better hurry up. Bananas, very quickly, are seedless. And I’m not 

going to go into the details. But if you go to the store and buy a 

banana, there’s no seed. Therefore, genetics and breeding are impossible. Now, bananas are a staple in a number of developing 

countries, and when they have diseases now, there’s no program to 

study these diseases and solve this problem. 

So we have transgenic approaches going on with bananas right 

now both in Africa and Australia and in the United States that are 

successfully impacting banana diseases. If the banana diseases are 

uncontrolled in banana-consuming countries, people starve, people 

die. 

All right. The next topic I’m going to whiz through is the 

phytobiome. And all I want to point out here is it turns out the 

microflora, the endophytes, if you will, is a fancy word, and it found 

in virtually all plants impact a great deal of attributes that enhance the crop in question. So these—the phytobiome will—for example, will enhance drought tolerance, disease control, but only in 

the areas where they need this to happen. 
42 

So in work, for example, done by Dr. Rodriguez, he found in Yellowstone that a certain type of microflora associated with thermaltolerant plants looked different from microbiome in the ocean, 

which conferred salt tolerance. So what I’m getting to is the fact 

that we can utilize phytobiome research to establish these probiotic 

microorganisms, and plants will make the necessary changes to 

control the stress that they are faced with. This is a new, high-risk, 

but very user-friendly control mechanism. 

The last part is involving CRISPR, which I know you’ve already 

heard about. So all I’m going to say about CRISPR, which doesn’t 

have the same implications as the human application, CRISPR in 

plants has two major advances that are very exciting to the plant 

community. One is multi-plexing and the ability to put numerous 

genes—numerous gene mutations in one genetic background, and 

the other is breeding. CRISPR is likely to revolutionize breeding. 

Breeding is a game of creating variation in plants and then going 

through all the characterization that needs to be done to understand the nature of that variation. Well, with CRISPR, you can 

make—you can make unlimited genetic variation by using this tool, 

thus obviating the need for chemicals and all the considerable work 

and time and effort that need to be done. 

So I will just come to my conclusions and just say that I want 

to remind everyone that all food that’s consumed is genetically 

modified. We need a new green revolution to face the coming needs 

and continuing needs of people throughout the world, and we need 

to support basic research to make the conclusions verified. In other 

words, many of the great discoveries are only done by unintended 

consequences, penicillin being a good example, which you could call 

him sloppy microbiologist. He found contamination that was inhibiting bacteria, and really that’s the key. And the other one is 

CRISPR, which is really a study of immune issues in a bacterium 

led to the CRISPR technology that we discussed in quite a bit of 

detail here and in previous meetings of this group. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dickman follows:] 
43 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, Agriculture, and Manufacturing 

Testimony of Dr. Martin Dickman 

Texas A&M University 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 

Thank you. Good morning Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, and members of 

the subcommittee; I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today and discuss emerging 

biotechnologies and applications in Agriculture. 

My name is Marty Dickman. I am a University Distinguished Professor of Plant Pathology at 

Texas A&M University and the Christine Richardson Professor in Agriculture. I also serve as the 

Director of the Institute for Plant Genomics and Biotechnology (IPGB) in the Norman Borlaug 

Center at Texas A&M University. Dr. Borlaug and several colleagues were largely responsible in 

developing the "Green Revolution" of improving crops and importantly crop yields in the 

poorest of developing countries. Dr. Borlaug has been widely acclaimed for these efforts most 

notably through awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize, (the only agriculturist to be awarded this 

honor) U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom and the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal. Dr. 

Borlaug's approach was straightforward but intense: the use of scientifically rigorous breeding 

approaches to address and solve some of the most pressing food security issues of our time. He 

saved millions of lives; in fact he is known to have saved more lives than anyone in history. 

We continue these efforts through the mission of the Borlaug Center which centers on a balance 

between fundamental and applied research. The mission of the IPGB is to develop plant 

biotechnology, genomics, and related life science technologies and to foster technology 

utilization and crop improvement through multidisciplinary research activities with model plant 

1 
44 

systems, field crops and horticultural plants. These are achieved by implementing modem and 

available technologies to increase our understanding of basic and applied (translational) issues in 

the Agricultural Biotechnology space, improve agronomic traits for crop plants and prepare 

young scientists with the necessary technical and conceptual tools to face the inevitable 

challenges that lie ahead. 

As food safety and food security concerns continue and are likely to increase; it is clear a new 

Green Revolution is needed. The issues we face in developing such a new revolution now differ. 

There is increased urbanization which limits land availability, increased water use and energy 

demands, unpredictable climate changes coupled with pollution and soil erosion, and when taken 

together, collectively, all contribute to reduction in yield. We now face the task of growing more 

food on the same or even diminishing amounts of land. 

In the remainder of my time, I will focus on three biotechnology approaches (i) Synthetic 

Biology, (ii) the Phytobiome and (iii) Genome Editing-- and their impact with respect to 

agriculture and food production. I will highlight for illustration, some of the exciting work at our 

Institute [and other units] that are in progress to address these crucial food safety and food 

security concerns. 

I. SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 

The early 1970s ushered in a new paradigm for biological research--molecular biology. This 

change totally transformed the landscape of life science research, bringing with it a revolution in 

biotechnology. There is now a new paradigm, synthetic biology, which may be just as 

transformative for biological research as molecular biology. This is an exciting time for life 

science research. 

Synthetic biology refers to the integration of molecular tools, engineering principles, and 

mathematical modeling to engineer organisms toward previously unattainable functions. This 

2 
45 

multidisciplinary discipline often requires integration of life sciences with engineering and 

modeling. Synthetic biology is still in its infancy of development, yet already has provided 

breakthroughs in crop production and in a wide array of other fields, including therapeutics, 

energy production and environmental remediation. Plants are being used to develop and 

commercialize novel and important products. For example, vaccines made against the anthrax 

toxin are being synthesized in plant "factories" grown hydroponically (which offers several 

advantages) using synthetic biology approaches to maximize production and purity. Similarly, 

plants are being used to synthesize artemisinin, an antibiotic/antimalarial toxin that is difficult to 

synthesize in sufficient quantity; again by application of synthetic biology. These approaches 

were built on several core research areas including genetic circuits design, metabolic 

engineering, high-throughput screening, and synthetic genome construction. 

A synthetic biology design often depends on or integrates with the systems biology studies, and 

in some respects, synthetic biology is an extension of systems biology, which is the study of 

biological systems with the goal of moving beyond strictly observational studies to a new 

predictive view of biological systems. Systems biology is enabled by modem genomic tools, as 

well as computational resources, that allow high throughput analysis of the various components 

of the whole organism. During the past decade, synthetic and systems biology has delivered 

tremendous progress in crop improvement and other agricultural applications (see banana and 

cotton examples below) that are entirely dependent on biotechnological applications for success. 

Cotton/Gossypol 

Cottonseed has the potential to provide a protein to the world, especially for poor nations, but it 

contains gossypol, with major health issues such as male sterility and immune disorders. At 

Texas A&M, we were successful in developing a cotton plant where the seed did not contain 

gossypol but other issues of plant health arose. However, with the tools of synthetic biology and 

molecular biotechnology, we can address the plant health challenge and the outlook is a major 

inexpensive source of protein for the future population. 

3 
46 

Cotton is a major crop grown in the state of Texas. It is well established that cotton seed is an 

excellent and abundant source of protein; nearly 25% of the seed dry weight. It is also known 

that gossypol, a common component of cotton seed and a plant defense compound has several 

characteristics making the seed unfit as food for human consumption or even as feed for nonruminant animals for human consumption. Thus the application of cotton seed protein for food 

and feed is not viable. However there were potential alternatives to capture this rich protein 

source, including conventional breeding. Why not perform crosses and screen for cotton that is 

gossypol free? This is very doable from a breeding perspective, and in fact was successfully done 

and the resulting plants were shown to be gossypol free; but these plants were also extremely 

susceptible to fungi and insects and while gossypol free, entire fields were lost! This was a costly 

lesson to show that gossypol confers protection from insect parasites and fungal pathogens. But 

is there an alternative strategy? This is where the power of biotechnology provides recourse. 

(This following work was done by Dr. Keerti Rathore and colleagues in the Borlaug Center). 

Briefly, the biochemical pathway for gossypol biosynthesis in plants is known. Employing a 

synthetic biology approach, Rathore used a regulatory element that directed genes specifically to 

the seed ("tissue specific"). When this element was coupled to the enzyme making gossypol and 

turned off by Virus Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS), the enzyme was inactivated but only in the 

seed, thus yielding gossypol free cottonseed. The rest of the cotton plant still made gossypol and 

thus was protected from pathogens. Importantly, yields were maintained. These transgenic plants 

are thus gossypol free in the seed and the rest of the cotton plant synthesizes normal levels of 

gossypol and is protected from biotic stress. Gossypol levels in these plants are well below FDA 

recommendations and several patents have been issued. Thus, the potential of cottonseed in 

contributing to the nutrition requirements of the burgeoning world population may be realized. 

Thus, in this particular example, this research is impossible without the availability of the new 

biotechnology tools, which were the only alternative. 

4 
47 

Banana 

The work to be summarized was part of a joint collaboration between Dr. Marty Dickman 

(IPGB-Borlaug Center-Texas A&M) and Professor James Dale (Queensland Institute of 

Technology in Australia). 

Banana is grown throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the world and is a key staple 

food in many developing countries, as well as a source of income for subsistence farmers. 

Diseases are major constraints wherever banana is produced. The vast majority of edible 

bananas grown today are selections that have not undergone improvement through conventional 

breeding due to the important and key fact: they are essentially sterile and thus an effective 

breeding/genetic program is not a viable option. Thus, a "molecular breeding" approach is 

widely considered the most promising strategy to generate disease resistance and stress tolerance 

in this crop, almost by default. 

Diseases reduce yields by debilitating plants and reduce the quality of fruit before and after 

harvest. Diseases range from esthetic problems that lower the marketability of the harvested 

product to lethal constraints that devastate local or regional production. Disease is the key 

reasons that banana-breeding programs have been created worldwide. The major diseases of 

banana are due to fungi; in particular fungi that secrete toxic metabolites. The Dickman lab 

studies cell death and has identified genes that are cytoprotective (anti-death). This was done 

using bioinformatics and was based on structural predictions that would not have been noticed by 

conventional screens. As a result we can modulate cell death transgenically and have shown that 

if we can prevent cell death (as in this case), the pathogen is unable to kill host plants and acquire 

nutrients; these fungal pathogens eventually die of starvation and the plant is protected. We have 

performed molecular breeding directed field studies in Australia where bananas are grown 

commercially and have selected several promising lines. 

Bananas also illustrate a common scenario in modem ~griculture with respect to plant diseases; 

the so-called "Arms race." When large acreages of genetically uniform disease resistant plants 

5 
48 

are grown, selective pressure often results in the pathogen adapting and overcoming the formerly 

resistant plant. Breeders then come in and breed against these new strains, and an arms race is on 

as has occurred throughout history. This has occurred in banana as well as wheat. This new 

fungal (killer) strain is very aggressive, is spreading and there is no genetic resistance. Growers 

are concerned and rightfully so. In the past, these diseases have led to starvation and even death 

in developing countries. We are currently testing our lines against this strain (race), and we are 

cautiously optimistic these transgenic plants will provide resistance. 

The Dale lab is also involved with bio-fortification in banana by transgenically increasing 

carotenoid (Vitamin A) levels in banana in an analogous situation to the Golden Rice situation. 

Deficiency of Vitamin A causes blindness in young children. According to the World Health 

Organization, dietary vitamin A deficiency (V AD) compromises the immune systems of 

approximately 40 percent of children under the age of five in the developing world, greatly 

increasing the risk of severe illnesses from common childhood infections, and causing hundreds 

of thousands of unnecessary deaths among them. The Dale lab has been remarkably successful 

ingenerating banana with biologically relevant levels of Vitamin A; tests for human consumption 

and allergens of banana are in progress. 

II. PHYTOBIOME 

The plant microbiome ("Phytobiome") is a relatively new field of study with intriguing potential 

applications that are in the early stages of development. The phytobiome is analogous to 

probiotic studies in humans (e.g. gut microbiome). The plant microbiome is an assemblage of 

microbes living in, on and around plants. These biomes function as a community of 

microoganisms with predictable compositions and are partners for life. Importantly microbial 

endophytes (resident internal microflora) involved with agricultural plant hosts have recently 

been shown to confer or are correlated with enhanced and in some cases remarkable positive 

agronomic traits (e.g., drought tolerance, disease resistance and others). Phtytobiomes can 

influence or be influenced by plants or the plant environment. Key questions include: 

6 
49 

1) Can these relationships be tapped to improve crop health, safety, quality and 

productivity? 

2) Can we develop microbes that reduce effects of drought, flood, and salinity, or 

develop microbes to enhance root growth hormonally- more and deeper roots! This is 

an opportune time for these studies as robust tools are now available (especially 

sequencing, "omics" and various computational approaches). We can address a 

number of questions previously unable to be asked about microbes in the 

environment-including who, how, what and why with tremendous precision, impact 

and accuracy often with unexpected results. Remember >99% of the soil meta-genome 

is completely uncharacterized and in most cases cannot be grown without a plant host. 

Lots of untapped resources and commercial opportunities exist in this realm of 

research. 

3) Can we breed plants that select for a beneficial microbiome? (e.g., disease is 

associated with shifts in microbiome composition.) Such shifts can be diagnostic for 

disease. (e.g., take all of wheat and suppressive soils). Microbes have been shown to 

reduce effects of drought, flood, and salinity. Microbes form biotilms, reducing ion 

movement into the plant. More work is needed to establish the relevant underlying 

mechanisms. 

4) Do plants control theirmicrobiome composition? It appears they do, based on 

research conducted by Dr. R. Rodriguez. Dr. Rodriguez initiated his work in 

Yellowstone Park, surveying and characterizing thermotolerant plants. He discovered 

that all heat tolerant plants that were studied had a specific, consistent associated 

fungus in the roots. Sensitive, non thermotolerant plants did not. Thus, 

thermotolerance correlated with the presence ofthe fungus. Similarly, his research in 

Seattle looked at plants growing in salt water, on the beach and on a hill overlooking 

the beach, and again he identified fungi that conferred the "proper" stress tolerance. 

Finally, in Oklahoma, during a melon study, he identified fungi that conferred disease 

resistance in melons. 

7 
50 

III. GENOME EDITING (CRISPR/Cas9) 

Briefly, genome engineering involves generating targeted alterations to the genome of an 

organism or cell. This can result in deletion insertions or modification. Targeted genome editing 

has recently exploded with significant experimental potential and power in both model and crop 

plants. As several limitations have been overcome, ease of use and affordability has occurred. 

The recent advances in several genome editing technologies, including the ability to specifically 

customize these engineered nucleases, particularly, the emergence of the CRISPR/Cas system 

(Clustered Regularly Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats) has fueled considerable interest in 

the genetics plant improvement as well as in the biomedical arena. With particular emphasis on 

plants; two important advances include multi-plexing (addition of several genes in one 

experiment), and breeding. Breeders now have a powerful, high throughput tool to generate 

variation; the cornerstone of breeding. These features are likely to change the face of 

contemporary breeding approaches. 

This remarkable ("Game changing") technology now provides the ability to customize and 

generate informed genetic modifications for any number of plant phenotypes. Plants are in the 

early stages of this technology with the bulk of the work thus far involving proof of concept and 

establishing experimental parameters. The clear potential awaits rigorous testing, the promise 

and potential are formidable all of which is likely the tip of the iceberg. 

Conclusions 

In closing, I want to reiterate that a new Green Revolution is necessary to meet the challenges 

that lie ahead. As the population increases, resource constraints increase, and climate becomes 

less predictable, the need for more food continues to rise. We must take advantage of all the 

tools available to address this need. Significant discoveries/paradigm shifts are often unexpected 

or unintended (e.g., penicillin, CRISPR) and support for fundamental research support is 

critically important to create opportunities for these discoveries and to provide new tools to 

address these problems. Research allows us to understand the mechanisms, how the technology 

works, and to optimize, improve, and commercialize new technologies. To commercialize an 

8 
51 

agricultural product require lots of time and lots of resources. These traits are often outside the 

comfort zone of a professor, and private companies are often far better equipped for high 

throughput scaling up. User friendly commercialization procedures could encourage increased 

development of commercial potential. 

This is an exciting time for life sciences research. 

9 
52 

Biographical Paragraph 

Dr. Martin B. Dickman 

Ph.D 1986, University of Hawaii 

Joined Texas A&M, December 2005 

Specialty: Plant-Microbe Interactions, Programmed Cell Death, Comparative 

Pathobiology, Biotechnology 

Dr. Dickman is an internationally recognized and distinguished scientist specializing in 

the genetics and molecular biology of fungi and fungal-plant interactions. Dr. Dickman's 

primary emphasis is on programmed cell death regulation and the extent to which 

parallels exist between plant and animal systems. Dr. Dickman established that parallels 

exist between plant and animal systems diseases and infection strategies, and he 

developed the concept that cell death can be beneficial or helpful for a pathogen 

depending on context and pathogen lifestyle. Another widely held perception at this time 

was plants were incapable of PCD. Dr. Dickman's work conclusively demonstrated that 

plants do in fact broadly exploit PCD as a key component of their development, 

immunity and stress responses. 

Dr. Dickman founded the field of comparative pathobiology and demonstrated that PCD 

is broadly conserved across phylogenetic kingdoms. Going against the current dogma he 

not only showed that genes that negatively regulate PCD in animals can be expressed in 

plants but remarkably such mammalian genes were fully functional in plants. These 

observations were game changing as previous studies between plants and animals 

indicated that plants lack DNA sequences encoding hallmark PCD genes. Dr. Dickman 

showed that these genes were similar at the structural level level Thus, predicted protein 

structure, independent of nucleotide or amino acid sequence, was needed to accurately 

predict biological function. Using this approach, his group identified the plant BAG gene 

family some members of which are being deployed in crop plants in Texas and around 

the world. 

Dr. Dickman received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Hawaii 

and the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Junior 

Faculty Recognition for Excellence in Research Award. At the University ofNebraska he 

was named the Charles Bessey Professor. At TAMU, he is currently the Christine 

Richardson Professor of Agriculture. 

In 1993, Dr. Dickman was elected as a Fellow in the American Phyopathological Society. 

His work was described as "among the most thorough and significant contributions in 

plant pathology." In 20 II he was elected Fellow in the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is the world's largest general scientific 
53 

society. The award, cited Dr. Dickman's "excellence in research in the genetics and 

molecular biology of fungal-plant interactions." This past year, he was awarded Fellow of 

the American Academy of Microbiology (ASM) in recognition for "excellence, 

originality, and creativity in the microbiological sciences." 

In 2011 he received the prestigious EC Stakman Award. Nobel prize winner Norman 

Borlaug was Dr. Stakmans first student and the first recipient of this award. I received 

this award for "Distinguished and exceptional contributions to plant-fungal 

interactions .... for pioneering research in programmed cell death and for elucidating 

common mechanisms in pathogen infection and host responses ... for creating a 

contagious excitement for science. Professor Dickman's dedication to scientific 

excellence and exceptional use of innovative approaches for advancing plant health 

embody the qualities and spirit of the Stakman award."In 2015, he was named University 

Distinguished Professor at Texas A&M. 
54 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Great. Thank you, Dr. Dickman. And I 

know we did go over our time, but you’re educating us, and so I 

figured it’s better for you to take up that time probably than some 

of us. So thank you, and we appreciate your enthusiasm, all of you. 

I now recognize Dr. Serber. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ZACH SERBER, 

CO-FOUNDER, CSO, AND VICE PRESIDENT 

OF DEVELOPMENT, ZYMERGEN 

Dr. SERBER. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Comstock, 

Ranking Member Lipinski, and the rest of the Committee, for the 

opportunity to testify today on a topic that I’ve devoted my career 

to expanding the impact of advanced biotechnology. 

A decade ago I was one of hundreds if not thousands of early career scientists and engineers who left academia to devote our 

human capital to extending the reach of biotechnology. Whereas 

biotechnology is synonymous for many people with the field dedicated to medical therapeutics, biotechnology also has the potential 

to transform other fields, including energy, agriculture, and manufacturing. The prospect of vastly expanding the societal and economic impact of our technical expertise attracted me and many 

other scientists, including Dr. Shetty, to new endeavors focused on 

realizing these potential far-reaching applications. 

Single-celled organisms—microbes—are the most versatile chemical factories on the planet. Dr. Shetty has already explained how 

engineering microbes can be used as microscopic biofactories. This 

is the basis for what has been dubbed the new bioeconomy in which 

companies increasingly rely on biology to source the materials used 

in their products. 

This is, however, not a new manufacturing paradigm. Today, 

chemicals made via large-scale fermentation are employed in a 

wide variety of agricultural and industrial applications, and, excluding ethanol, comprise over $66 billion in revenue globally, or 

roughly ten percent as much as petrochemicals. While a relatively 

small percentage, the rate of growth of chemicals made biologically 

is greater than ten percent annually, whereas the petrochemical 

market is growing at less than seven percent. In time, chemicals 

made via fermentation may come to dominate the overall chemicals 

market. 

My company, Zymergen, was founded recently in 2013 to contribute to this expanding market. Our core business is to use biotechnology to rapidly and reliably engineer microbes used in the 

manufacturing of chemicals for a variety of applications. Zymergen 

is under contract with Fortune 500 companies to improve the manufacturing economics of chemicals they currently make in largescale fermentation by engineering the single-celled biofactories they 

already use. 

Our ability to realize this incredible potential relies not only on 

scientists and engineers but also on government policy that supports this type of research and innovation. Having interacted with 

dozens of large domestic producers of goods made through fermentation, I should mention that Zymergen fully supports the July 

2 White House memorandum on modernizing the regulatory system for biotechnology products, which directs the relevant federal 
55 

agencies to develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the biotechnological regulatory system is prepared for the rapidly changing future of our industry. 

I can confidently say that the current regulatory system is full 

of inconsistencies and scientifically unsound characterizations. This 

regulatory system has not kept up with changes in the technology, 

creating confusion, delays, and inefficiencies. It is our hope that the 

EPA, FDA, and USDA can efficiently and rapidly update the coordinated framework. 

Two-and-a-half years ago, Zymergen had three founders. Today, 

we have 93 employees. Growth has not slowed and we are on pace 

to more than double in staff size in 2016. This rapid growth is not 

based on speculation. Quite the contrary, our challenge to date has 

been excessive market demand. We are working day and night to 

keep up. Our customers are large, established manufacturers of 

chemicals made through fermentation. As they seek to reduce costs 

and increase manufacturing productivity and competitiveness, they 

see Zymergen and our technology as essential to maintaining competitiveness. 

Zymergen depends on cross-disciplinary research. Our engineers 

and scientists are trained in fields including microbiology, genetic 

engineering, robotics, chemical engineering, and machine learning. 

Our most valuable employees are rare individuals with expertise in 

multiple relevant domains, able to bridge the gaps between, for example, genome editing and software engineering. Federally supported educational and training programs are critical to providing 

us with the staff we need to grow and fulfill our potential. 

Recent activities in our space supported both through public and 

private sector investment have dramatically altered what is now 

possible through biotechnology. So while Zymergen has initially devoted our insights to improving the economics of existing products, 

the approaches developed enable us also to expand the palliative 

chemicals that can be made through biology. This amounts to a 

technological revolution likely as important to advancing societal 

well-being, national security, and economic productivity and competitiveness as the invention of the transistor or the invention of 

heavier-than-air flight. 

In keeping with this promise, we recently contracted with the 

DARPA’s new Biological Technologies Office under their Living 

Foundries: 1000 Molecules program. This program is developing 

new capabilities that will enable biomanufacturing of known or 

novel chemicals on demand and at scale. As few as three years ago, 

entire companies in this arena were founded to develop a single 

chemical product. With the support of DARPA, we at Zymergen are 

pushing the technology to develop new biosynthetic pathways for 

over 300 specific chemicals of interest. We are targeting an overall 

20-fold cost reduction in new product development. 

Further, our team of biologists, engineers, and material scientists 

are choosing these chemicals to form the basis for new materials. 

These materials are expected to have novel properties in categories 

as wide-ranging as thermal stable plastics, marine adhesives, and 

antiseptic battlefield dressings. 

While the potential application of each new material generates 

considerable interest, what excites me and my colleagues at 
56 

Zymergen most is the creation of a cutting-edge technological platform designed to accelerate innovation in new materials, an area 

where innovation has slowed, and importantly, an area historically 

completely unrelated to biotechnology. This is but an example of 

the myriad ways biotechnology can impact the U.S. economy and 

improve society. I am pleased this hearing presents an opportunity 

to engage in dialogue about ways we can work together to realize 

the potential of this industry. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Serber follows:] 
57 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology Hearing- The Future of Biotechnology: Solutions for Energy, 

Agriculture and Manufacturing 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015- 10:00am 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. Zach Serber, Zymergen 

Testimony 

Good morning. Thank you Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, and the rest of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify on a topic that I have devoted my career to: expanding the 

impact of advanced biotechnology. 

A decade ago I was one of hundreds if not thousands of early-career scientists and engineers who left 

academia to devote our human capital to extending the reach of biotechnology. Whereas the term 

'biotechnology' is synonymous for many people with the field dedicated to medical therapeutics, 

biotechnology also has the potential to transform other fields including energy, agriculture, and 

manufacturing. The prospect of vastly expanding the societal and economic impact of our technical 

expertise attracted me and many other scientists to new endeavors focused on realizing these potential 

-and far-reaching- applications. 

Single-celled organisms-microbes-are the most versatile chemical factories on the planet. When they 

consume carbon (often some form of sugar), their normal metabolic processes convert that carbon into 

a wholly different product. Which is to say that if we are able to reliably program these microbes, we 

can essentially use them as microscopic "biofactories" that churn" out valuable raw materials. This is the 

basis for what's been dubbed the "New Bioeconomy," in which companies increasingly rely on biology 

to source the materials used in their products. 

This bioconversion process is traditionally called fermentation. You know it as the process that gives us 

beer and wine, but ethanol is just one of many products generated through fermentation. Today, 

chemicals made via large-scale fermentation are employed in a wide variety of agricultural and 

industrial applications and, excluding ethanol, comprise over $666 in revenue globally [1], or roughly ten 

percent as much as petrochemicals [2]. While a relatively small percentage, the rate of growth of 

chemicals made biologically is greater than ten percent annually [1] whereas the petrochemical market 

is growing at less than seven percent [2]. The difference in the rates is also growing. In time, chemicals 

made via fermentation may come to dominate the overall chemicals market. 

My company, Zymergen, was founded in 2013 to contribute to this expanding market. Our core business 

is to use biotechnology to rapidly and reliably engineer microbes used in the manufacture of chemicals 

for a variety of applications. Zymergen is under contract with Fortune 500 companies to improve the 

manufacturing economics of chemicals they currently make in large-scale fermentation by engineering 

the single-celled "biofactories" they already use. 
58 

Our ability to realize this incredible potential relies not only on our scientists and engineers, but also on 

government policy that supports this type of research and innovation. Having interacted with dozens of 

large domestic producers of goods through fermentation, I should mention that Zymergen fully supports 

the July 2"d White House Memorandum on Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology 

Products, which directs the relevant federal agencies to develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the 

biotechnology regulatory system is prepared for the rapidly-changing future of our industry [3]. I can 

confidently say that the current regulatory system is full of inconsistency and scientifically unsound 

categorizations. The regulatory systems have not kept up with changes in the technology, creating 

business-sapping confusion, delays, and inefficiencies. It is our hope that the EPA, FDA, and USDA can 

effectively and rapidly update the Coordinate Framework. 

Additionally, I'm pleased to see that Congress is considering the ways the Federal government can 

proactively support biotech research through H.R. 591, introduced by Congresswoman Johnson and 

Congressman Sensenbrenner. Bills like H.R. 591, the Engineering Biology Research and Development Act 

of 2015, help facilitate a comprehensive strategy to ensure the United States remains globally 

competitive in biotechnology as it shapes nearly every industry of our economy. 

Two and a half years ago Zymergen had just three founders. Today we have 93 employees. Growth has 

not slowed and we are on pace to more than double in staff size in 2016. This rapid growth is not based 

on speculation. Quite the contrary, our challenge to date has been excessive market demand; we are 

working day and night to keep up. Our customers are large, established manufacturers of chemicals 

made through fermentation. As they seek to reduce costs and increase manufacturing productivity, they 

see Zymergen and our technology as essential to maintaining competitiveness. 

Zymergen depends on cross-disciplinary research; our engineers and scientists are trained in fields 

including microbiology, genetic engineering, robotics, chemical engineering, and machine learning. Our 

most valuable employees are rare individuals with expertise in multiple relevant domains, able to bridge 

the gaps between, for example, genome editing and software engineering. Federally supported 

educational and training programs are critical to providing us with the staff we need to grow and fulfill 

our potential. 

Recent activity in our space, supported through both public and private sector investment, has 

dramatically altered what is now possible through biotechnology. So while Zymergen has initially 

devoted our insights to improving the economics of existing products, the approaches developed enable 

us also to expand the palette of chemicals that can be made through biology. This amounts to a 

technological revolution likely as important to advancing societal well-being, national security, and 

economic productivity and competitiveness as the invention of the transistor or the invention of 

heavier-than-air flight. 

In keeping with this promise, we recently contracted with DARPA's new Biological Technologies Office 

under their "living Foundries: 1000 Molecules" program. This program is developing new capabilities 

that will enable the biomanufacturing of known or novel chemicals on demand and at scale. As few as 

three years ago, entire companies in this arena were founded to develop a single chemical product. 

With the support of DARPA, we at Zymergen are pushing the technology to develop new biosynthetic 

pathways for over 300 specific chemicals of interest. We are targeting an overall 20-fold cost reduction 

in new product development. Further, our team of biologists, engineers, and materials scientists are 

choosing these chemicals to form the basis for new materials. These materials are expected to have 
59 

novel properties in categories as wide ranging as thermostable plastics, underwater adhesives, and 

antiseptic battlefield dressings. 

While the potential application of each new material generates considerable interest, what excites me 

and my colleagues at Zymergen most is the creation of a cutting-edge technological platform designed 

to accelerate innovation in new materials development, an area where innovation has slowed and, 

importantly, an area historically unrelated to biotechnology. This is but an example of the myriad ways 

biotechnology can impact the US economy and improve society. I'm pleased that this hearing presents 

an opportunity to engage in dialogue about the ways we can work together to realize the potential of 

this industry. 

Thank you. 

References: 

[1] Carlson, R. Bioeconomy Capital LLC; Biodesic LLC. Estimating the Contribution of Biotechnology to the 

Economy of the United States. [DRAFT]. October, 2015. 

[2] Transparency Market Research. Petrochemicals Market- Global Industry Analysis. Size. Share, 

Growth, Trends and Forecast 2014-2020. July, 2015. 

[3] Executive Office of the President. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and 

Budget, United States Trade Representative, and Council on Environmental Quality. Modernizing the 

Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products. July 2, 2015. Retrieved December, 6 2015, from 

https://www. whitehouse.gov I sites/ defau It/files/ m icrosites/ ostp/modern izing_ the _reg_ system _for_ bio 

tech_products_memo_final.pdf 
60 

Zach Serber is a scientist and entrepreneur devoted to finding alternatives to petroleum. 

He recently co-founded Zymergen to expand the impact and reach of industrial microbial 

fermentation. Zymergen applies radical new methods to design and improve microbes by 

rewriting their DNA. This capability allows the company to generate novel chemicals and 

advanced materials far faster, at lower costs, and with less risk than ever before. Dr. Serber was 

previously the Director of Biology at Amyris where he worked on manufacturing bio-derived 

transportation fuels, on lowering the cost of the anti-malarial drug Artemisinin, and on 

developing advanced tools for engineering biology. Dr. Serber has 17 peer-reviewed 

publications, six filed patents, and has worked as a research fellow at Stanford University 

Medical School. He has a PhD in Biophysics from UCSF, an MSc in Neuroscience from the 

University of Edinburgh, and a BA from Columbia University. 
61 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. Now, I recognize myself for questions for five minutes. 

Dr. Shetty, you’ve testified that one of the potential barriers to 

biomanufacturing is public acceptance of these products and sometimes concerns that come up. Can you discuss that a little, both the 

concerns and how to address them? And I really would invite all 

of you—I think you’ve all addressed that a little bit—but how we 

can best proceed in this and address some of the more alarming reactions in an informed and scientific way. 

Dr. SHETTY. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman 

Comstock. 

It’s interesting. To date, biotechnology has largely been behind 

the scenes, right? The—people are not always aware that the foods 

they eat, the medicines they take are made with the products of 

biotechnology. However, I think we’re seeing a shift. As the technologies are improving, more and more consumer-facing products 

are coming out onto the marketplace. So Ginkgo’s cultured rose is 

an example. I also alluded to others in my testimony, so animalfree versions of milk, of meat, and, you know, there are companies 

making spider silk using yeast and spinning that into jackets. So 

a Japanese company named Spiber is partnering with North Face 

to bring out a spider silk jacket that’s currently touring Japan. 

So I think what you’re going to see over the next few years is 

that biotechnology is going to be interacting more and more directly with the consumer, and this is going to change a—drive a 

shift in attitudes naturally. And with that shift in attitudes, you’re 

going to see a greater public acceptance of this—of these kind of 

technologies. 

That being said, we continue to have a responsibility to ensure 

transparency in our sector. So, you know, there are obviously a lot 

of concerns around, you know, what does a supply chain look like 

for the products I buy? Should I be seeing certain labels on my 

foods or in my—the products I buy? 

I think really a lot of those conversations really stem from a desire for information, a desire for knowledge. And what I’m excited 

about actually is that through biotechnology we can actually increase the transparency of our supply chains. If my yeast are growing these products in a fermenter in the middle of Iowa, it’s a lot 

easier for me to understand where exactly my—the products I’m 

buying at the grocery store come from. 

And so, in short, I would suggest that were seeing a transformation happen. As the tools get better and better, more and 

more consumer-facing products are going to be coming out onto the 

market and drive a change in attitudes. 

Dr. DICKMAN. If I could just chime in quickly—— 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Yes. 

Dr. DICKMAN. —to be the devil’s advocate, I think in the past— 

and I agree with much of what you said, Dr. Shetty—I would argue 

that academic scientists who are unfamiliar with have—we have 

not done a great job in communicating to the public what it is we 

do and why it is so vitally important. I think that’s changing now, 

but the—a lot of what you see in the newspapers are sort of peerbased sort of newsworthy items. You never hear about the success 

stories that are also going on and actually in much more abun-
62 

dance. So I think we just need to be sensitive to the public to a 

large part being uninformed properly to what it is we do. And we’re 

all—myself, as well as companies, until recently have not really 

dealt with that. In my view, we can do a better job of showing the 

great things that this powerful set of technologies can in fact do. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very 

much. And I will now yield to Mr. Lipinski for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. It’s been really very interesting, and 

I’ve learned a lot here, although I still can’t say I exactly know 

what you’re doing. 

But I want to throw this more general question out there and 

have everyone tell me what you think can be done because I know 

that Dr. Shetty had talked about U.K. and China have work—wellcoordinated national programs in synthetic biology. So I want to 

start with Dr. Shetty. And you talked a little bit about this, but 

what do you think along those same lines that we should be doing? 

The big thing here is you’re here to tell us what we can do to be 

helpful in moving things forward and we have the best benefits for 

our society here. So, Dr. Shetty, what would you—anything else 

you would recommend? I know you talked about quite a few things. 

Dr. SHETTY. Yes, so I think one of the things we need to appreciate is that biotechnology today is not just about health and medicine, right? And I think this hearing is testimony to that. Biotechnology in the future is going to have major impacts in many 

other areas besides health and medicine, including, you know, 

manufacturing, agriculture, and energy. So I think what needs to 

happen is that there needs to be a national recognition of that importance, and we need to push forward a more organized national 

funding program in this area. And so H.R. 591 is a step in this direction, and I would encourage you to garner bipartisan support for 

this bill and push it forward. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Dr. Serber, do you have anything? So 

what are other countries doing? You know, what can we do that 

we’re not doing? 

Mr. SERBER. A couple of things come to mind. So amongst them 

is a coordinated roadmap. The efforts in the United States are fragmented. The support for this growing industry doesn’t have a clear 

home base for lobbying, for support, for garnering the kind of widespread development of the tools that we’re going to require to push 

forward the sector. 

I mentioned a couple of times that we’re receiving DARPA support, and I believe that today in the field of synthetic biology 

DARPA has far and away provided more support than any other 

federal agency for this enterprise. I think it amounts to roughly 60 

percent of the dollars spent by the federal government in 2015 to 

this new field. 

DARPA’s a very small agency, and they can’t go it alone, and 

their focus is on creating a preventing strategic surprise. So their 

application space is understandably focused. I’m looking forward to 

other agencies using that as inspiration to build support base, 

funding for additional research both in academia and translational 

research. I’m looking for educational programs to help give the 

cross-disciplinary familiarity because to succeed in this field requires expertise not in the silos of biology or chemistry or physics 
63 

or computer science, but rather cross-trained individuals who are 

equally versed in aspects of all of the above to really push the field 

forward. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Anyone else wants to go? Dr. Evans? 

Dr. EVANS. So I think one of the things that you can see looking 

over the history of this technology space, the United States, 

through some very aggressive, risky, early technology investments, 

pioneered the field. I think when people are rewriting—or writing 

the history looking back from 100 years or so, they will see that 

these early federal efforts pioneered the field nationally and led 

globally with the idea that engineering biology could become that 

next revolution on the scale of technology development along the 

first Industrial Revolution. 

However, as Dr. Serber was showing, there isn’t now in the 

United States a coordinated framework of either the research or of 

how it can be effectively moved into market acceptance. And so 

when you look at some of the things that the other countries are 

doing, they are attempting to make sure that industry and academics are being mushed together to an extent. So the centers that 

are being funded particularly in the U.K. require some joint industry, government, and academic input. And I continue to point to 

Synberc as a very good example of that domestically. 

But all of this will have the same challenge that the U.S. biotechnology industry had in the mid-1980s when we were trying to 

apply genetic engineering techniques to recombinant bacteria for 

release into the environment for bioremediation and other things 

that are going to be logical outcomes of all of the biome research. 

So we’re going to have paper after paper that says wouldn’t this 

be cool or important if we could do this in engineering a 

phytobiome? But there’s not going to be a regulatory path to get 

an engineered prokaryotic organism out into the environment because we just haven’t dealt with those questions. They were 

brought up, stopped, and dropped. 

And so coordinating that kind of federal research that helps build 

extramural research centers that might be needed to deal with 

questions around release will be very important to realize the 

broad application of some of the engineering technologies that require deliberate release outside of contained fermentation. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I’m over time here so I’m going 

to—I think I’m going to have to yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Great. Thank you. And I now recognize 

Mr. Moolenaar for five minutes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 

all of you for being with us here today and for your testimony. 

And I wanted to follow up on some of the things that have been 

discussed. One is in the area of coordinated research you mentioned, both long-term research, you know, market acceptance, coordinated roadmaps, strategic plan. It seems like those themes 

keep coming up. And then there’s also the coordinated framework 

for the regulation of biotechnology that hasn’t been updated since 

1992. And I’m assuming the memo—the White House memo was 

instructing that that would be updated. Is that correct? 
64 

Who—I’ve heard different agencies mentioned, the EPA, USDA, 

FDA. Who is the point on that? Is there one agency that the convener in that? Dr. Maxon? 

Ms. MAXON. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is working with all three agencies because all three agencies regulate 

products that are biotechnology products. One of the challenges I 

think my colleagues have referred to is there are bio-innovations 

that straddle agencies, that seem to belong partly in the domain of 

the USDA and partly in the domain of the FDA, and the EPA for 

that matter. There are examples where all three agencies might be 

involved. 

So I think what’s really promising about this is there will be an 

opportunity to not only update but also to clarify the roles of the 

agency. Who is the lead agency when a company wants to have discussions? So all three and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are working together. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And are you all giving input to that process? 

Do you feel like you’re at the table discussing that with them? 

Dr. MAXON. I know there was a recent request for information. 

Several companies did submit information. There will be another 

chance. A couple of more—I think there are two more public meetings scheduled. The first one was held on September 30, I believe, 

at the FDA. There’ll be two other meetings scheduled around the 

country starting in January, I believe. There’ll be plenty of opportunity. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. And then what’s the timing on—would it 

be a new rule, a new regulation, a framework that comes out and 

then there’d be a public comment period after that framework 

comes out? 

Dr. MAXON. I can’t speak to the definite product of the expected 

products. I do know that in addition to the work at the agencies, 

their will—around the coordinated framework itself, there will be— 

there’s an expectation, as outlined in the memo, for a long-term 

strategic plan to be delivered in a fairly short time frame by the 

agency. So they have a couple of jobs to do. But I do believe that 

there will be open comment on any product that comes out. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Any others have any comment on that? 

Dr. SERBER. Many of the partner companies we work with who 

are already engaged in large-scale manufacturing are stimulated to 

become involved in this process by—the writing is on the wall for 

them that if they don’t embrace the new technology, their competitiveness with the products that they make will be eclipsed by others who have. So this framework is really required to maintain the 

United States’ lead in the manufacturing of many of these goods, 

without which we will be stuck manufacturing products using 

1980s, 1990s technologies, and others will be employing the more 

advanced technologies and have better economics around manufacturing. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And is the framework the same as the strategic 

plan or is that totally different? 

Dr. MAXON. These are two different—— 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. 

Dr. MAXON. Yes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And then who is driving the strategic plan? 
65 

Dr. MAXON. I believe from the memo the effort is the Administration with the Office of Science and Technology Policy in concert 

with the three regulatory agencies. But I believe OSTP is working 

with the agencies. I didn’t want to say they’re running it but 

they’re coordinating it. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Dr. Evans, did you have a comment on 

that? 

Dr. EVANS. Not on the last question, I was—on your question before. You know the thing that is important is the predictability. 

That is what is important for us in, say, the ag industry where our 

development timelines are a decade. And so when you have policy 

shifts or in—particularly when you have policy frameworks that 

don’t have a strong science base so that you can bring data to the 

decision to try to move and have an informed and data-driven process. That’s where things get increasingly challenging for us to 

make investment decisions that are reliable and robust. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank 

you for your insights. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize Congressman Abraham. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Dickman, let’s go back to you for just a second. You referenced the MAGE and the CAGE, the multiplex automatic 

genomic engineering and the computer-aided on your research. It’s 

certainly my belief and I think the belief of many of us that world 

security is the food scarcity or having food security for underdeveloped nation. And I think one of the criteria for being an underdeveloped nation is that you simply can’t provide enough food 

for your people. So in my opinion this is another piece of the pie 

that we fight world terrorism with, that we’re able to feed the people that can actually do some good and do some good things. 

So I guess the question is how far in your crystal ball are we 

away from really getting there to some of these underdeveloped nations of these technologies where you can potentially grow wheat 

in the middle of a desert or you can increase yields by five to ten 

percent? Where are we in the timeline there? 

Dr. DICKMAN. Well, it depends if the glass is half-full or halfempty. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Right. 

Dr. DICKMAN. Certainly, there are a lot of positive progresses 

that are being made in developing countries, but it’s a complex— 

it’s not a compound, but it’s a complex issue. There’s a lot of politics involved, and while the growers generally support these kinds 

of plans and roots to food production, they’re often hampered by 

politicians and people of other interests. So the hurdles to overcome, depending on the country you’re talking to, are considerable. 

But I might add, for it—but it can be done. Let me—bananas, to 

use something I know a little bit about, are now in human field 

trials actually in Iowa with the hope that the hoops have gone 

through sufficiently to put them out on a humanitarian effort in Africa in another year as bananas—you know, the rice—Golden Rice, 

which is even making vitamin A and preventing blindness in children, has run into lots of—which has been heavily advertised and 

it’s sort of the poster child for transgenic crop plants has slowed 

down considerably due to regulatory hurdles. 
66 

So to answer your question, to where it would be a viable economy with an assortment of crop plants, we’re probably talking ten 

years as well I would say realistically. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. That’s a good enough ballpark. At least 

we’ve got some thing we can—maybe put our toe in the water in 

so to speak. 

Dr. Serber—and I’ll go to Dr. Evans or anybody on the panel who 

wants to answer this—you mentioned the Swiss cheese, I guess, effect of our regulatory process here in the States, but you also mentioned that we need to accelerate innovation, and those two are 

pretty much diametrically opposed. But anytime we regulate, we 

slow down the process tremendously. 

So the balance of—I’ll flip to the health side for just a minute 

with the CRISPR technology and the Cas9. We have the potential 

and the ability, I think even now, to cure single mutations, single 

gene mutations, but again, we have countries that are abusing this 

to the point of trying to manufacture a—the perfect child or the 

perfect person. Where is the middle ground here? Where do we 

start, I guess, is a question of how we can accelerate innovation but 

at the same time make sure that this wonderful technology doesn’t 

fall into the hands of some nefarious people? 

Dr. SERBER. The quick answer from my—and really, it’s just 

from our point of view—is the place to start is in simpler systems. 

The mammalian application of these technologies is more complicated when it comes to the ethical and legal considerations. The 

application—the technology actually began as a natural phenomenon in bacterium, and it has been applied across the animal 

kingdom in very short order, given its power. 

We at Zymergen apply those sorts of technologies in the application of microbes like bacteria that—from which they were originally 

found for the purposes of improving them in the biocatalysis that 

they are used in large-scale fermentation. This is a—makes for us 

from our perspective a nice testbed for assessing the suitability of 

the technology in a regime that certainly has oversight—I’m not 

implying for a moment it doesn’t—but doesn’t raise as many issues 

as other applications have. And as I think we learn more about the 

technology and its applications and grow more comfortable with it 

in this sector, it will be much easier and more natural to move it 

and expand it into other sectors, which will include human health. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. All right. Thank you. I’m out of time, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. I now recognize Mr. Westerman for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here today. 

I grew up in a time where I read stories about Dr. George Washington Carver and the amazing things that he did, sort of the man 

who can make something out of nothing with his research on peanuts and sweet potatoes. 

When I was in high school I thought I was just getting out of 

school for a day but I was very involved in the Future Farmers of 

America, and I got invited to a conference. It was called the Governor’s Conference on Agricultural Innovation. It was hosted by 

then-Governor Bill Clinton and the special guest was Norman 
67 

Borlaug, so I got to be a member of that panel. I’m not sure how 

that happened. If I’d known the significance of it at the time, I 

might have listened a little bit closer. 

But, you know, there was a time when people who did this research and came up with all these great ideas were given Nobel 

Prizes. There were departments at colleges named after them. They 

won all kinds of awards and were viewed as heroes, yet today, if 

you fast-forward, as a Member of Congress, I get a lot of constituent feedback in opposition to the GMOs or any kind of biological research. I did also—I attended forestry school, and the time I 

was there it was during the—a lot of the genome—human genome 

research. My undergraduate degree was in biological and agricultural engineering, so I’ve kind of followed this for a while. 

But at the time the human genome was being mapped, the genome of the pine tree was not—or was being worked on but it was 

about seven times more complicated than the human genome. And 

I believe in 2014 they finally mapped—or sequenced the pine tree 

genome with about 23 billion pairs to it. And I know that when you 

talk about biofuels, if you look at pine trees and you look at the 

amount of lignin in the tree versus cellulose, you could engineer a 

tree to make a lot more lignin, which would create more biofuels 

or you could engineer it to make more cellulose, which would be 

better than paper. So there are a lot of benefits to this. But also, 

there seems to be a lot of pushback. 

Dr. Dickman, do you believe that gene editing technology is related to crossbreeding or hybridization techniques that have been 

used for thousands of years, or is it something totally new that we 

should be afraid of? 

Dr. DICKMAN. You’re properly managed. I’ll learn one of these 

days. 

I think—again, as was stated previously, the gene editing technology is a much more serious issue in the biomedical field because 

you’re talking about generating transgenic people and there’s lots 

of ethical issues. But in terms of plants, they’ve been mixing—naturally mixing populations, as you said, thousands of years and naturally for the most part selecting traits of interest. 

But CRISPR and genome editing in general can convert the 

plants field is a much more significant leap of time to get to the 

desired product, much more power—experimental power. So they’re 

basically under the same—under a similar umbrella but have different rates of progress. That is one reason why CRISPR and genome editing is so exciting because the potential to create variation 

in terms of breeding practices is virtually unlimited and much, 

much more rapid and much more informed as—toward the breeding population. So it confers a number of advantages. Again, it 

comes back to public understanding what exactly this is and how 

it works and why it’s beneficial as opposed to just being something, 

you know, with—DNA-related and more concern that really should 

be alleviated. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And I know from the forestry side there was 

concerns about Franken-trees—— 

Dr. DICKMAN. Right. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —you were going to plant these trees and they 

would take over the landscape. 
68 

Dr. DICKMAN. The monster that ate Cleveland. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Right. 

Dr. DICKMAN. It hasn’t happened yet. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But most of these genetically modified organisms, they require more of a specific environment to survive, and 

in the natural world they can’t propagate themselves as well is my 

understanding of that. 

Dr. DICKMAN. That’s true. There’s a lot of microbes out there. I 

mean, as I was rushing to say, in the phytobiome work, it’s now 

become clear that these microorganisms confer a number of different traits to the host plant that they’re residing in, and if you 

remove those microorganisms, you loose the trait, you lose tolerance, you lose disease resistance. So if we can understand the 

microbiome in plants or in any other—or even in the human gut 

where it’s being done quite extensively, that gives us another avenue of approach to try to generate the kinds of things we need to 

better the world. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And, Dr. Evans, what are the environmental, 

safety, and health impacts of genetically engineered plants and animals? 

Dr. EVANS. I think that’s a great question. Those are things that 

have been well covered by the history of the coordinating framework in bringing products through from the—from initial registrations in 1995, 1996 on with the original BD crops. 

So both nationally and internationally these products have had 

a large degree of oversight. There have been hundreds of studies 

conducted by third parties, so independent researchers. Of course, 

companies have to provide data. Even the universities that are attempting to move some of these products as they try to get into 

field trials have to provide safety and environmental data. 

So I think the concept of what is there from the large company 

perspective, we don’t see major gaps where we could just try to 

drive something unregulated through the system. We have a lot of 

desire to be able to want the public to have confidence in these 

products because they’re going to consume them. 

And so the thing we still need though is, you know, after 20 

years the regulatory burden, the familiarity with the products, and 

the technologies don’t appear to be decreasing the submission packages or time. And so things just keep getting added and added, and 

they do not appear always to have a strong scientific base. 

And so I think the federal government can help provide some research in some of the questions and independent research by federal land-grant universities and such that could help move that 

question down the road because we aren’t going to be able to feed 

the population of the planet, as has already been discussed, by simply applying and hoping for the next incremental increase in a 

breeding approach. There are things that need to be brought to 

bear in this time frame to 2050 that require novel solutions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your 

indulgence. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

And I now recognize Mr. Tonko for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome to the panelists. 
69 

As a nation, we are woefully under-producing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in 

the 21st century, I believe that we as a nation need to place a 

strong focus on STEM education. I fear that without an increased 

commitment to STEM education, American students will not be 

represented in the STEM fields and American workers will be unable to compete for jobs or grow careers in the enhancing STEM 

industries that exist. 

It seems that this is the case in this area as well. In fact, Dr. 

Saber’s testimony mentions the need for employees with expertise 

in multiple relevant domains. So to any of our panelists, my question would be would you please discuss the skills that are necessary, essential for emerging interdisciplinary fields like the field 

that we’re discussing here today? Anyone? 

Dr. SERBER. I’ll start but I think other members of the panel 

have something to say about it. It’s worth highlighting that a panel 

like this is composed of people who’ve spent at least a quarter-century in school apiece getting the skills required to reach a level of 

just pure competence in the field. And it’s especially difficult given 

the long time horizons of the educational program to stay current 

in a rapidly evolving system. And having federal support to be nimble and flexible around that to change the educational programs 

and support as the technology improves is absolutely critical. 

I found myself recently in conversations with faculty at UC 

Berkeley discussing new master’s programs that they want to install with an eye towards training staff for jobs in businesses and 

companies like that of Zymergen, the company that I founded with 

two others, which certainly involves a lot of biology but also more 

automation, robotics, computation, computer science than you 

would think. And I’m finding that there are certain educational 

programs across the United States when I go higher that are particularly adept at cross training graduate students and undergraduates for a future in this career, which will be intrinsically 

cross-disciplinary. It is no longer sufficient to get ahead in a technical field to be an utter specialist in one area, at least by my estimation. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I believe, Dr. Evans, you were going to 

say something? 

Dr. EVANS. I think that if you look at what we need and the students that are interesting to us, one of the places that I get a lot 

of encouragement is looking at something like iGEM, the program 

that’s focused at not only the college level but there are high school 

teams competing in iGEM now. And a number of them developed 

products, concepts, projects that are related to agriculture, the environment. They’re very sensitive to detection and remediation. 

And so what do you have—what you have in common there is a 

need to understand questions and to be able to inform ways of 

thinking about questions that are often not just, say, one gene at 

a time anymore or even one question at a time. If you start thinking about the interaction of these microbials, these would be multiple microbes interacting with a plant that might be interacting 

with an insect. So everything about it is interaction-based, and so 

scientific skills that can help students begin to comprehend interactions. 
70 

But those interactions also have an important metaphor, which 

is interaction with the community at large. Just because we can do 

something, people need to ask the question should we or how 

should we. And those interactions of science with their technology 

at the bench, being able to go have a conversation with someone 

who is in another department in the school with no science background at all, those skills are very unique and quite lacking. And 

so we need to be able to integrate a good sense of science, of— 

across a number of disciplines, but the ability to think and ask 

questions, at least understand or comprehend questions, that there 

could be policy or health or ILSI implications is important. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. Dr. Maxon, I think you had a comment you 

wanted to share? 

Dr. MAXON. Yes. Yes, thank you. Sorry. I have a bit of a cold and 

I’m making sure I can get through this. 

A couple of thoughts come to mind. In the United States approximately 50,000 people per year receive doctorates. More than half 

of those people—it depends on the field, of course—but more than 

half of those people don’t end up in 10-year-track academic positions. You’re looking at a table here with a bunch of people who 

got academic training through the apprenticeship model that gives 

us our Ph.D.’s. 

But what we are not trained to do is understand the skill sets, 

I think—to underscore the points made by my colleagues—to work 

in industry, to manage a budget, to understand how to write a 

business plan. These are not things we learned in the system. 

And so on the level of graduate education I would say that the 

United States should work a little harder to broaden the exposure 

of graduate students to the kinds of skills they’re going to need, depending on what field they’re going to end up in, whether it’s going 

to be science journalism or academic research or a medical research 

or plant research, at a company. It doesn’t matter. I think we can 

do a better job at that. 

At the undergraduate level, a couple of thoughts occurred to me 

there, too. 1) Most importantly, I think we see the best outcomes 

in developing scientists and engineers when we give them immersion opportunities, not just canned lab experiments to do that thousands of students before us have done, but actual research experiences where we are the first people to ever actually do an experiment in an undergrad environment. I know that’s hard to do and 

I know it’s expensive, but there are people who are doing it and 

I think it’s very good trend in the right direction. 

And lastly, community colleges, I know some of the national labs, 

ours included, are working very hard to establish relationships 

with community colleges to put into the curricula critical inspirational pieces for understanding how to engineer biology. So I think 

there’s a lot of work we could do. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. I think you’ve all cited a need 

for investment, and I endorse that. 

Madam Chair, I don’t know if Dr. Shetty had any comment. It 

looked like you wanted to share some thoughts. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Sure. You’re welcome to—— 

Ms. SHETTY. Yes, the one comment I want to add to my fellow 

panelists is that STEM education starts—needs to start early. It’s 
71 

not—doesn’t begin at the undergraduate level. I myself had the 

benefit of doing a research experience at my local university as a 

high school student. And those early exposures to STEM education 

is critically important to fostering the scientists today, particularly 

when you’re talking about young women, right? There are a lot of— 

the balance of genders between men and women in science and 

math fields is very skewed in a certain direction, and so we’re not 

tapping into the full potential workforce with those statistics. 

And so as I look forward encouraging young girls to participate 

in STEM fields is absolutely important. And as a mom with a 

young daughter, you know, I want that for her. 

Mr. TONKO. Super. Madam Chair, thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I’m glad we got to have 

you mention that opportunity. I started a Young Women’s Leadership Program so we could do that very thing, and my daughter is 

a biology major, did not get any of that from me so—but she had 

a lot of great women teachers at George Mason here in her master’s program. 

I’ll now recognize Mr. LaHood for five minutes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the 

witnesses for being here and for your testimony and all the work 

that you do. 

Dr. Shetty, question for you. There’s been discussion about how 

the United States is losing our competitive edge with China and 

the United Kingdom when it comes to synthetic biology, and I 

guess trying to understand the reasons for that and why we’re falling behind and what steps we need to take to maintain our competitive advantage in biotechnology. 

Ms. SHETTY. Yes, thank you for the question. So I think probably 

the best example of interest in—the worldwide interest in this area 

is the International Genetically Engineered Machines competition. 

This is an undergraduate competition in synthetic biology where 

teams from universities design and build genetically engineered 

machines, organisms. And for the past few years most years the 

winner is not from the United States, right? It’s coming from Europe, coming from China, coming from overseas. So I think this is 

a reflection of what is to come if we don’t make domestic investments in this area. 

And so I think part of the problem or part of what needs to happen in this country is that we need an organized program of investments, right? No one piece is enough because there’s a lot of synergy to be had between having the agencies understand and coordinate their research efforts both on the basic R&D side but also on 

the translation into industry through SBIR programs, and then finally, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, the U.S. Government 

serving as a customer for biotechnology products as these nascent 

industries are getting going. 

And so we need a coordinated, multipronged strategy, and that 

has—that coordinated strategy has been pushed forward by the 

United Kingdom, by China, by other countries in the EU, but so 

far, we have not done the same here in the United States. 

Mr. LAHOOD. In the competition that you referenced, when did 

that change occur where the United States hasn’t been the winner? 

Was that recently or 5—how long ago? 
72 

Ms. SHETTY. The competition started in about 2004. I would say 

by 2005, 2006 there started to be—the winners of the competition 

started to become schools from outside the United States rather 

than within the United States even though this field largely has 

its original roots in the United States. I was there. I was part of 

it. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Got you. Dr. Maxon, as a follow-up, my home State 

of Illinois has a large and diverse bioscience industry with over 

78,000 jobs and 3,400 businesses that contribute to the State’s 

economy as it relates to bioscience. I know you were the author of 

the National Bioeconomy Blueprint in 2012 that outlined steps that 

federal agencies should take to drive the bioeconomy in the United 

States. I know we referenced that a little bit earlier, but what’s the 

status of those recommendations in that report? 

Ms. MAXON. Thank you for that opportunity to talk about what’s 

happened since the release of that policy document. 

I think the recent memo on July 2 from the White House talking 

about taking a look at the regulatory framework—the coordinated 

framework is a direct reflection of one of the five strategic objectives of the National Bioeconomy Blueprint. So I would say in that 

regard right at the top of the list is taking a look at the coordinated 

framework. 

Workforce development was another. You’ve heard some ideas of 

how we might be able to jumpstart the system, get a few more 

chemical processing engineers, that kind of thing, still need some 

work to be done there. 

Public-private partnerships for biosciences, I think what could be 

done there—and there are some efforts underway right now I believe, funded by the NSF, to identify precompetitive research challenges that industry shares that might actually benefit from government—public-private partnership with both government and 

company investment. 

So those are three right away. A couple more, strategic research 

investments, that was the number one objective in the National 

Bioeconomy Blueprint. I think you’ve heard most of the people, if 

not all the people on the panel, say the same thing. We could do 

a better job here. And one of the reasons, to answer your last question, to address your last question about why are we falling behind 

in synthetic biology specifically, I look at this as another example 

of technology. Nanotechnology is an example, emerging technologies. Technology in general sort of falls between the cracks in 

the federal agencies, and so I think the idea of a coordinated—federally coordinated strategic approach to lift the technology is where 

I think some opportunity still remains. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Madam Chair, if I could ask one last 

question of Dr. Shetty? 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Okay. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Dr. Shetty, one of your company’s 

projects funded by DOE ARPA program supports R&D to capture 

natural gas flared by shale. Can you describe how your company 

is using that biotechnology to conduct this work, and what have 

those outcomes been thus far? 

Dr. SHETTY. Thank you for the question. So there’s an interesting 

transition that’s happened in recent years in this country, which is 
73 

that on a per-carbon basis, carbon derived from methane, natural 

gas, methanol is cheaper than carbon derived from other sources, 

say, sugar. And so there’s a growing interest in—both within our 

company and others in using these as feedstocks for bio-production 

of various chemicals and fuels. 

And so we had initially had DOE ARPA–E funding in this area 

to develop some nascent technologies, and we’ve since partnered 

that work with a commercial partner and are taking it forward. 

Now, unfortunately, because it’s partnered, I’m under some confidentiality restrictions and so I’m not able to speak to the details 

of that program, but suffice it to say, this is an area of interest 

both for ourselves and others, and it’s a potential new frontier 

when it comes to bio-production of these types of fuels. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. 

Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all so 

much for being here for this important discussion. I do believe this 

is an important hearing. 

And as technology continues to evolve and new opportunities materialize, it’s increasingly necessary that we keep our regulatory 

structure up-to-date while developing biotechnology in the most 

ethical way possible. This means coordination and communication 

between our researchers, their institutions, our government, and 

also among government agencies. 

Dr. Maxon, I wonder if I could address my first couple questions 

to you. You mentioned the Human Genome Project in your testimony, which for me has been an excellent example of the unique 

capabilities of the Department of Energy to bring to the table in 

computing, among other things. DOE basically had to start the 

project to prove the concept before NIH was able to take this up 

as a serious cost-effective endeavor. How has the Human Genome 

Project benefited the nonhuman health biotech sectors? And also, 

is there a similar systematic sequencing project needed for agriculture or naturally occurring chemicals as well? 

Dr. MAXON. Thank you for your question. I apologize. I have a 

bit of a cold today. To your first question, Human Genome Project, 

how has it benefited the non-biotechnology. I assume you mean the 

non-biomedical world? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, I’m sorry. 

Dr. MAXON. No, thank you for clarification. I think one thing that 

that human genome sequencing project did was democratized DNA 

sequencing. So laboratories everywhere, whether you’re studying 

viruses or the plant microbiome, whatever it is, people can now sequence DNA very quickly as a consequence of the human genome 

sequencing project. 

So I think that—and in fact, I don’t think it’s overestimating it 

to say all of biology has benefited in that way. Anything that has 

DNA, if you can sequence DNA quickly and cheaply and in a democratic fashion, everything has benefited. So I think the magnitude 

of that can’t be underscored. If you could remind me of your second 

question? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, the second question was, you know, as far 

as agriculture or other naturally occurring chemicals is there a 
74 

similar systematic sequencing project that we need or where we 

should focus? 

Ms. MAXON. A similar systematic sequencing project, wow. I am 

not in a great position to answer that question. I think I would 

defer that to my agricultural colleagues. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Does anybody else have a—yes. 

Mr. DICKMAN. There is actually quite a bit being done in agricultural sequencing if you will. In fact, NSF has a plant genome program that is actually very well-funded, nice to hear, and has been 

ongoing for a number of years. There’s also microbial genome sequencing program that just finished. 

So—and also independently, now that it has gotten so relatively 

inexpensive and available and doable in a rapid fashion, there’s a 

lot—there’s a great many agricultural-related genome sequencing 

projects going on now. 

Another area to be marketable in is bioinformatics and computation because back when I was a student, you know, we cloned the 

gene was your thesis. Now, you go home, it’s 25,000 genes and you 

have to figure out what to deal with it. So there’s a massive 

amount of data handling, but that is being done to the United 

States’ credit in support of those kinds of projects. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s great. Thank you. I’m going to go back to 

Dr. Maxon if that’s all right. From your time at OSTP and now 

with the lab, surely you’ve seen the difficulties of getting agencies 

to work together, especially in getting them to leverage one another’s resources, tools, and human expertise. It sounds to me like 

there is great potential if agencies would work more closely together in this space, for instance, if ag aggressively leveraged the 

synthetic biology and genomic capabilities of the national labs. I 

wonder, will this work and what do you suggest? How do we—from 

your experience, how do we best work together? 

Dr. MAXON. Thank you for that question. I’m tremendously optimistic about this. I do think there’s an incredible opportunity here. 

The potential is amazing. I was heartened to see the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in December of 

2012, or at least a report called ‘‘Agricultural Preparedness.’’ And 

in that report they recommended that the USDA work with the 

DOE and the NSF to set up new innovation ecosystem hubs for agriculture. I think an idea like that where the DOE, that knows how 

to set up innovation hubs, working with the USDA, could go a long 

way with NSF in making something like this happen. 

I was also heartened to see not long after that report that the 

USDA, in its budget, requested funds for a biomanufacturing institute. So I think we’re very close and I’m very optimistic. So I think 

it will work. It just might take a little bit more time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. My time is almost expired. I will yield 

back my last 7 seconds. Thank you. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. And I now recognize Mr. Weber for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let the record show 

I have five minutes and second seconds. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and participate. 

And, Dr. Dickman, this question is for you. The past—this past 

year public researchers involved in communicating the science of 
75 

biotechnology and its impacts have been—actually been targeted 

both professionally and personally. I’m sure you’re aware that. Doctor, as a public scientist, can you give me more background kind 

of into the current academic feeling on this public outreach? You 

all are getting targeted a lot of—some stuff has been aimed at you. 

What’s the feeling amongst your peers? 

Dr. DICKMAN. Well, a number of things, disappointment and 

things of that nature when you see a greenhouse that’s been destroyed by stones, for example, with all kinds of messages written 

on them. It’s a bit disconcerting. But in terms of people’s research, 

I don’t think that has impacted it. I mean people are still doing 

what they plan to do and continue to do and get funded to do. So 

it’s an unfortunate circumstance. I really don’t think it’s really had 

a strong impact on people’s ability to do work with the exception 

that there is some material things that have been destroyed that 

needed to be replaced. It’s been—is actually not too bad now. 

Mr. WEBER. Not too bad? You actually said I believe in your discussion with the Chairwoman that you felt like you all needed to 

do a better job of showing capabilities, I guess educating the public? 

Dr. DICKMAN. Very much so. 

Mr. WEBER. Has that been progressing? 

Dr. DICKMAN. Well, I do it by—on sort of a grassroots level. We 

don’t have any organized framework with which to do this. I think 

we do. We do need that, whether it be from academic or—and/or 

companies—— 

Mr. WEBER. Have you done the genomic sequencing on that 

grass? You said grassroots level. 

Dr. DICKMAN. That’s actually in the queue for other reasons. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. So you’re doing it at the basic level is what 

you’re saying. 

Dr. DICKMAN. Well, there’s a number of turf breeders who work 

strictly on golf course turf you might want to talk to. 

Mr. WEBER. There is a shock, huh? Well, we’ll thank you for 

that. 

And, Dr. Evans, as you know, Dow Chemical has a lot of industry in my district there in Texas. In fact, I was going to tell the 

gentleman from Illinois—he left before I could—that there was 

78,000 jobs associated with this. In Texas, there’s 81,000 jobs. 

Things are bigger in Texas. 

So—but, Dr. Evans, you also mentioned in the three C’s of national needs both continuing to support national scientific funding 

agencies and convening forms of discussion for the public engagement or outreach that Dr. Dickman and I were just discussing. 

With limited resources in public research, what role do companies, 

for example, like Dow Chemical play in promoting that scientific 

interest? 

Dr. EVANS. Well, I think one of the ways that we have been involved last year with the help of the NSF, the Woodrow Wilson Institute, there was a convening of companies, regulatory bodies, and 

nongovernmental entities that had interest in the environmental 

release of microorganisms, whether they be algal strains that 

might do chemical production or concepts that synthetic biology 

might want to bring into the environment. That group at least pub-
76 

lished recommendations where things could go, with some of those 

recommendations being specific federal funding. 

Now, companies I do think need to be able to know where to direct their research, and their research needs to be aimed at their 

product technology space and legitimate questions around that 

product area. But there are some things that just are big enough 

in scope or they are fundamental questions of biology or biotechnology that are more properly addressed in integrative lab 

studies from multi-university settings or they might be appropriate 

to be something that would be the outcome of a national lab and 

a focused program. And—but industry could then, even in that scenario, be an appropriate partner. The—I think the thing from the 

public perspective is we need to make sure that the public can see 

transparently where those contributions are being made and—— 

Mr. WEBER. That’s a good point, you know, in your discussion 

with the gentleman from New York, Representative Tonko, I think 

you said, just because we can do something, you should ask the 

question should we do something. And if the public perceives that 

a company is getting involved, is that a conflict of interest? I think 

you were the one who said—let me quote you. Earlier, you said 

that we needed more feed, fuel, fiber, and food, more—and by 2050 

than in the last 10,000 years. That’s an astounding fact. And with 

limited resources available I think if the public knew, you know, 

what was at stake here, that they might not be so suspicious. But 

I appreciate your testimony and, Madam Chair, your indulgence. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I think by agreement 

Mr. Westerman has a few more questions, and I’m going to let him 

have the chair because I’m going to have to depart. But I want to 

thank the witnesses very much for a very interesting and insightful 

hearing and appreciate all the great research you’re doing. And I’m 

glad we have two women here, too. So thank you. And we certainly 

appreciate the men, but thank you for your comments, Dr. Shetty, 

and we will keep those in mind going forward, too. Thank you. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. [Presiding] I guess that’s one way to get to ask 

another question. 

So, Dr. Maxon, you mentioned this briefly in some remarks, but 

talking about nanoscience, and I was able to tour the Institute for 

Nanoscience and Engineering Technology at my alma mater, the 

University of Arkansas. It was very exciting to me, the possibilities 

there. So I was wondering if the panel could address the opportunities in nanoscience as it relates to biotechnology. And is this an 

area that needs more research funding? 

Dr. MAXON. I’m not an expert in nanotechnology but I’ll kick this 

off and then allow my colleagues to respond. 

I know that nanotechnology intersects with biotechnology in 

some of the high-level treatments that are being done now to target 

certain therapeutics at certain parts of the—very specific parts of 

the body. I know that nanotechnology is used in the process of 

doing some diagnostic kinds of analyses, again, in the biomedical 

space. I don’t—like I said, I’m not an expert. I don’t know much 

about how nanotechnology intersects with the non-biomedical 

fields. It’d be interesting to hear from my colleagues whether there 

are any. 
77 

Dr. EVANS. There was in fact a small NSF industry and university consortium that was established at the University of Illinois to 

try to bring together—it was established at a former nanotechnology center. Well, it still is a nanotechnology center, but they 

brought in industry that was involved in agriculture, some other 

industry that was involved in food and diagnostics and medicine to 

try to come in and bring products to market rapidly that could be 

based on nanotechnology. 

I think if you just step way back—I’m not a physicist, but the 

thing that nanotechnology did to material sciences has helped reenvision what was possible. We thought we knew what was possible with our understanding of the physics and of the performance 

of materials at a certain scale, but nanotechnology changed that, 

and remarkable products and concepts came out of that. 

I think engineering biology is doing the same thing to biology. 

We had a framework of what was possible that was rocked with 

the development of recombinant DNA technology in the early ’80s. 

Insulin came very quickly after that, a Nobel Prize. Now, we have 

high school students that could do the same level of engineering 

that formed early products. And so this is reengineering what is— 

or reimagining what is even possible using biology for what it’s 

very good at, making things, making nano-structured things. Biology makes wonderfully complicated nano-structured materials in 

things besides carbon. And so how does it do that? And how could 

technology be brought to bear to do that? 

And so I think it’s questions like that that a good, well-thoughtout national plan for bringing students and bringing the technology 

to bear could follow on that metaphor of nanotechnology. And I had 

to bring in associated concepts of regulatory and safety all at the 

same time. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Dr. Maxon? 

Dr. MAXON. To follow on the point that Dr. Evans just made, the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative is a great example of a coordinated effort that gave rise to coordinated federal research, coordinated interest in public science, the public understanding of the 

science. I think that that model exists that could be applied here. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Anybody else like to address the nanoscience 

question? 

Dr. SERBER. Only very briefly that biology is already the supreme 

source of nano-exquisite molecular structures. Biology and the enzymes that it employs to do chemistries are there for us to make 

use of as we attempt to expand the chemical palette of building 

blocks that we can use to make new materials. So there is a definite overlap in some of the applications. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And, Dr. Serber, just as a quick last question, 

your work in biofuels, can you describe some of the barriers that 

exist for bringing biofuels to market? I know there’s been a lot of 

attempts, not really any successful attempts. 

Dr. SERBER. Yes, quickly, so I’m currently no longer working on 

biofuels, but I did spend about seven years pursuing biofuels. And 

the challenges that that sector faces are driven by the macroeconomic forces having to do with the price of oil in the price of 

feedstocks for the fermentation products. 
78 

It’s worth highlighting that in the course of pursuing biofuels, 

both with private and federal funding, all the tools that we are— 

this panel is making use of to drive other applications and other 

technology, a lot of that began with biofuels. The biofuels have not 

yet reached the economic tipping point to be competitive, but 

things only need to change a little bit for that to turn around. And 

we’ll be ready when they do. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. I’d like to thank the witnesses for their 

valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. The witnesses are excused and 

this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(79) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for holding this hearing. I want to thank you 

and the Ranking Member for putting together such a distinguished panel of witnesses who represent the national laboratories, large companies, start-up companies, and academia. 

This morning, we are talking about emerging biotechnologies and their applications for the energy, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors. 

A number of these new technologies are based on engineering biology research 

that allows researchers to safely re-engineer existing biological systems and to learn 

from and mimic existing biological systems to perform novel tasks and develop novel 

materials and products. 

These new technologies are exciting and have the potential to solve some of society’s greatest challenges, including providing food for a growing population, reducing 

our dependency on fossil fuels, and dramatically transforming manufacturing. Additionally, they have numerous applications for the biomedical sector, some of which 

we heard about at a hearing this past summer. 

Given the promise of this research and its applications, I introduced the Engineering Biology Research and Development Act of 2015, with my Science Committee colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

The bill would establish a framework for greater coordination of federal investments in engineering biology and lead to a national strategy for these investments. 

The bill would also focus on expanding public-private partnerships and on education 

and training for the next generation of engineering biology researchers. 

Additionally, the bill will ensure that we address any potential ethical, legal, environmental, and societal issues associated with engineering biology. It will also ensure that public engagement and outreach are an integral part of this research initiative. 

The goal of this legislation is to ensure that the United States remains preeminent in this critical area of science and technology. As I anticipate hearing this 

morning from our witnesses, if we do not make the necessary investments, we will 

lose our leadership position in engineering biology. 

We are already seeing other countries make significant progress. The EU and others are investing, working on coordinated strategies across their research enterprises, and developing action plans to execute those strategies. Right now, we are 

still a leader in engineering biology, but we must continue our work to ensure that 

we do not cede this leadership position. 

This field has the potential to grow our economy, create jobs, and improve our 

quality of life. Even though we are in an increasingly interconnected world, it is important to do all we can to promote innovation and job creation here at home. 

I am hopeful that we can work together across the aisle to ensure that the United 

States remains a leader in engineering biology. 

In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Æ