Here’s a talk I just gave on Big Think–about viruses, synthetic biology, and tapeworms that carry my name. The sound quality isn’t as good as I’d like, but I hope the words make up for it.

Scientists tinker with my favorite bug  so that it can solve mathematical puzzles.

There’s a piece in the Wall Street Journal today about biohacking: people experimenting with genetically engineered microbes and viruses at home. It tries to inject anxiety into your brain right from the start, with a headline,  “In Attics and Closets, ‘Biohackers’ Discover Their Inner Frankenstein–Using Mail-Order DNA and Iguana Heaters, Hobbyists Brew New Life Forms; Is It Risky?”

I was surprised, however, to discover that the reporter does not mention the one time that somebody actually got arrested and charged with biohacking. At last year’s World Science Festival, I moderated a panel with the artist Steven Kurtz, who had just finished navigating a Kafkaesque experience with the FBI for having a PCR machine and some harmless soil bacteria in his house. While we certainly need protection against bioterrorism and risky experiments, we definitely do not need the sort of ignorance of basic biology that was on display in the Kurtz affair.

Eyebeam, the New York gallery that hosted the panel, later posted the talk in several parts on YouTube. I’ve embedded them below. Kurtz has a sad and surreal story to tell.

Over on bloggingheads, I talk with Rob Carlson, one of the most perceptive thinkers around when it comes to pondering where biotechnology is headed. Until his new book comes out in the fall, this will have to tide us over….

Over at Bloggingheads, Chris Mooney declares the War on Science over, I foresee different sorts of conflicts, and  together we try to predict the future of science in 2009.

Over at Science News, Janet Raloff has a report about Steven Chu’s appearance earlier today before the Senate for his nomination to be Secretary of Energy. It sounds like he really perked up when asked about biofuels from synthetic biology:

Chu explained that the two-year-old program is striving to develop fourth-generation biofuels. To date, researchers at the lab have “trained” bacteria and yeast to take simple sugars and produce “not ethanol, but gasoline-like substitutes, diesel-fuel substitutes and jet [fuel] substitutes.” He says a cadre of “brilliant” scientists who had previously spent most of their careers in basic research is now “very focused on making this technology commercially viable.”

Asked about what type of plant material would be used — since Lincoln was hoping it might be grown in Arkansas — Chu perked up and chuckled: “Now we’re getting to science. I love this!”

Currently, no particular plants are being focused on, but they could include anything from algae and corn stover to grasses and lumber-mill dust and scrap. So Chu reassured Lincoln that her state grows suitable raw materials.

But the real key to making these next-gen biofuels, Chu says, will be figuring out how to design feedstock plants that would grow using fewer energy inputs and prove more robust in the field. The program’s also investigating pretreatments for plant-based cellulosic feedstocks. Their goal: to facilitate the ability of single-cell organisms to break these materials down by separating out and discarding the molecules that plants make to protect themselves from attack by microbes and fungi.

Such a multi-pronged approach looks to optimize all phases of biofuels production with no preconceived idea of which area is likely to offer the biggest payoff. And that, Chu said, “is why I’m so optimistic some real progress can be made.” And rapidly.

I expected this. Unfortunately, nobody asked Chu to estimate how much land would be required in Alabama and elsewhere to grow enough food to allow these hungry little bugs to make a significant contribution to our energy needs. Nor did anyone ask Chu to comment on the potential environmental impacts of harvesting so much plant matter, a topic I brought up recently in an article on the environmental effects of synthetic biology.

But, then again, I wonder how many senators even know what synthetic biology is. Perhaps it’s time they find out.