Sometimes to look into the past you need to dig deep—not just physically, but visually, as well. Some of the experiments at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) in Berkeley do just that. With their powerful X-rays they can examine dinosaur blood or determine what killed Napoleon.

Scientists at the ALS recently dug into Roman concrete this way. Remarkably, Roman concrete constructed 2,000 years ago is still strong today, even under rough sea. In contrast, the concrete we manufacture only lasts around 100 years.

Additionally, most of the concrete we produce today has terrible environmental impacts. The process for creating Portland cement, a key ingredient in modern concrete, requires fossil fuels to burn calcium carbonate (limestone) and clays at about 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Seven percent of global carbon dioxide emissions every year comes from this activity.

To make a greener, more durable concrete, scientists from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, working with Berkeley researchers, used spectroscopy at the ALS to examine the Roman concrete and determine its ingredients. Ancient Romans made no secret that volcanic ash was part of the process, but the team also discovered a very rare hydrothermal mineral called aluminum tobermorite (Al-tobermorite) that formed in the concrete, and evidence also suggests the use of seawater in mixing the concrete.

To build underwater structures, Romans mixed lime and volcanic ash to form mortar, and then packed this mortar and volcanic tuff into wooden forms. The seawater instantly triggered a hot chemical reaction. The lime was hydrated—incorporating water molecules into its structure—and reacted with the ash to cement the whole mixture together.

The researchers are now finding ways to apply their discoveries about Roman concrete to the development of more earth-friendly and durable modern concrete. They are investigating whether volcanic ash would be a good, large-volume substitute in countries without easy access to fly ash, an industrial waste product commonly used to produce modern, green concrete. (Fly ash was used in constructing the Academy’s LEED-certified building.)

“Many countries don’t have fly ash, so the idea is to find alternative, local materials that will work, including the kind of volcanic ash that Romans used,” says Berkeley’s Paulo Monteiro, one of the authors on a recent study. “Using these alternatives could replace 40 percent of the world’s demand for Portland cement.”

The ALS shows that by looking into the past, you can solve problems for the future.

Image: Carol Hagen

That’s what a recent paper in PLoS Biology asks—and doesn’t really answer.

Instead, it lays out a great argument, giving the pros and cons of using the controversial technique in addressing conservation issues. It also urges the two parties—synthetic biologists and conservation biologists—to get in the same room and talk about the possibilities and problems with open minds. In fact, the authors of paper organized a meeting this week in the United Kingdom, bringing the two groups of scientists together. (Ed Yong has an article about the meeting at National Geographic.)

The paper describes several examples of how synthetic biology could work to help conservation efforts—restoring habitats, supporting endangered species, and even reviving extinct species. It also lays out several examples of how synthetic biology could wreak havoc on the natural world. (The open-access article is very readable. We encourage you to review it or at least take a look at the examples in Table 1.)

The paper and meeting come on the heels of huge media coverage on de-extinction. National Geographic’s April issue on the topic garnered a lot of press and generated public interest. In some cases, these articles say, de-extinction could be just a few years away, if not closer.

The PLoS paper and de-extinction topic seemed to be a great opportunity to speak to Terry Gosliner, the Academy’s Dean of Science and Research, about the subject.

“Do you really want to encounter a saber-toothed cat in Muir Woods?” Terry joked when we sat down.

He sees huge potential risks in using synthetic biology for conservation, but admits that the meeting and discussion are a great idea. “Open dialogue is the only way to explore the topic, see the potential and understand what the concerns and dangers are,” he says. “Bad things happen when there isn’t discussion. Informed dialogue is the best way to deal with controversial issues.”

Terry believes some aspects of synthetic biology in the natural world could work, with appropriate regulation.

But he also sees that synthetic biology may not be the right approach. When thinking about threatened species, the problem is usually “habitat loss, not necessarily genetic constraints.” He uses the re-emergence of California condors as an example of this.

And in some cases, extinction is a natural process, Terry reminds us. Synthetic biology could just be more of humans interfering with nature, and not in a good way.

The resources going toward de-extinction could be better used to protect life before it goes extinct, Terry thinks. “If we use the same resources to address climate change and how we use energy,” Terry says, “We literally could save hundreds and thousands of species.”

And those energy and climate resources could be from synthetic biology. The PLoS paper cites a 2009 report on synthetic biology: “Many believe that synthetic biology will be one of the transformative technologies necessary to combat climate change, energy shortages, food security issues and water deficits.”

What do you think? Can synthetic biology save wildlife? Where do you stand on the issue?