Manchester workshop advances technical understanding of mirror organism precursor technologies
The meeting followed calls by some and an for a moratorium on the creation of mirror organisms due to potential risks. The creation of mirror organisms likely remains several decades away, but relevant work on precursor technologies is ongoing.
On 15-17 September, over 30 leading experts in synthetic biology, mirror biochemistry, sociology, ethics, and tech governance gathered outside of Manchester, U.K. for technical workshops co-hosted by of the University of Manchester and the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund, a non-profit dedicated to understanding and addressing risks posed by mirror organisms.
The Manchester workshop provided valuable technical inputs on precursor technologies to help inform discussions about research boundaries and governance approaches that would protect legitimate research.
Concerns about mirror organisms have been discussed at several recent scientific meetings. A at the Institut Pasteur 鈥� detailed in a subsequent 鈥� explored how mirror organisms could plausibly evade many mechanisms of immunity and natural ecological controls and pose potentially significant risks to humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems.
Participants at the Manchester workshop examined four key precursor technologies that could contribute to the creation of mirror organisms. They evaluated the potential benefits of each technology, the extent to which its development would lower barriers to the creation of mirror life, and possibilities for its governance. The technologies examined were:
- Protein synthesis Using Recombinant Elements (PURE) systems using natural-chirality proteins;
- Mirror ribosomes;
- 鈥淐rossover鈥� translation systems that enable natural-chirality transcription-translation machinery to produce mirror-image proteins; and
- The 鈥渂ooting-up鈥� of fully synthetic natural-chirality cells.
鈥淎ny governance framework for mirror-image organisms should explicitly preserve beneficial mirror biomolecule research, particularly chemical synthesis of mirror biomolecules,鈥� said Jonathan T. Sczepanski, Professor of Chemistry at Texas A&M University. 鈥淢irror biomolecules are promising candidates for treating diseases that current therapies can鈥檛 address effectively. Workshop discussions underscored the importance of drawing boundaries against high-risk applications like creating mirror life, while ensuring that therapeutic and other valuable research can progress.鈥�
No firm conclusions on research boundaries were reached at Manchester, though international discussions on mirror life are ongoing 鈥� for example, recent discussions at the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine explored mirror life, and further engagement is planned at the National University of Singapore in 2026.
鈥淭he discussions at Manchester highlighted how creating mirror life would require major technological advances, but also that researchers are making progress on the underlying technologies,鈥� said Kate Adamala, Associate Professor of synthetic biology at the University of Minnesota. 鈥淲e鈥檙e still in a position where it鈥檚 possible to stop mirror life from being made, but as these technologies mature, our options for intervention will become more limited.鈥�
鈥淭he interdisciplinary nature of these challenges became clear through our discussions,鈥� said Joy Zhang, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent. 鈥淩ed lines alone aren鈥檛 sufficient 鈥� we need a portfolio of governance approaches, including red lines, safety nets, and incentives, that account for the social and ethical dimensions of this technology.鈥�
The Engineering and Safeguarding Synthetic Life (ESSL) on 18 September also featured discussions about mirror organisms. The conference included talks on synthetic cells, genome engineering, and convergence with AI and robotics. Several presentations and a panel discussion examined historical examples of red lines in scientific development; technical and ethical questions about mirror organisms; and scientific discussions since the December 2024 publication of a Science and that first presented the risks of mirror organisms in detail.
鈥淭he discussions at Manchester showed the importance of scientific input and careful analysis in any decision-making around guardrails on research,鈥� said James Smith, Deputy Director of the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund and adjunct faculty at the J. Craig Venter Institute.
"As this conversation moves to Singapore next year, I鈥檓 excited to invite diverse stakeholders from Asia and around the world to join this critical discussion,鈥� said Matthew Chang, Executive Director of the National Centre for Engineering Biology, Singapore, and Professor at the National University of Singapore.