Explainer: Synthetic biology for materials & chemicals — a practical primer for teams that need to ship

In 2025, the global synthetic biology market reached $19-24 billion, with industrial biotechnology—the segment most relevant to materials and chemicals—capturing nearly 40% of that value (Grand View Research, Straits Research). Investment rebounded strongly in 2024 with $12.2 billion in venture capital flowing into the sector, driven by corporate net-zero mandates and a 90% reduction in DNA synthesis costs over the past decade (SynBioBeta 2025 Investment Report). For teams seeking to replace petrochemical feedstocks, reduce Scope 3 emissions, or manufacture novel biomaterials, synthetic biology has moved from laboratory curiosity to commercially viable infrastructure. This primer distills the core concepts, maps the key players, and provides an action checklist for teams ready to integrate bio-based manufacturing into their sustainability strategies.

Why It Matters

The chemicals and materials sectors collectively account for approximately 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with conventional petrochemical production responsible for roughly 5% of global CO2 output annually. Synthetic biology offers a fundamentally different approach: instead of cracking hydrocarbons at high temperatures and pressures, engineered microorganisms convert renewable feedstocks—agricultural sugars, waste gases, even captured CO2—into target molecules through biological pathways operating at ambient conditions.

The sustainability implications extend beyond carbon accounting. Bio-based manufacturing can eliminate toxic intermediates common in traditional chemical synthesis, reduce water consumption by 50-70% compared to conventional processes, and enable circular design by producing inherently biodegradable materials (Nature Biotechnology, 2024). The U.S. government has recognized this potential, announcing a $15 billion National Biotechnology Initiative targeting 30% bio-based chemical production by 2040. Similarly, the European Union's Circular Bio-Based initiative has committed €2.2 billion to developing 15 operational biorefineries across the continent.

For corporate sustainability teams, the strategic calculus has shifted. Major brands including Unilever, IKEA, and Kering have publicly committed to bio-based material transitions, creating downstream demand that validates upstream investments in fermentation capacity. The question is no longer whether synthetic biology will transform materials manufacturing, but how quickly teams can integrate these technologies into existing supply chains while maintaining cost competitiveness.

Key Concepts

Understanding synthetic biology for materials and chemicals requires fluency in several interconnected disciplines.

Metabolic Engineering forms the foundation—the practice of modifying an organism's metabolic pathways to overproduce a target compound. Engineers might introduce genes from one species into a production host (typically E. coli or Saccharomyces cerevisiae) or delete competing pathways that divert carbon flux away from the desired product. Modern metabolic engineering leverages computational models predicting how genetic modifications cascade through cellular metabolism.

Strain Development encompasses the iterative optimization of engineered organisms for industrial performance. A laboratory strain producing milligrams per liter must be evolved through directed evolution, adaptive laboratory evolution, or rational design to achieve the grams-per-liter titers required for commercial viability. This process typically consumes 60-80% of total development time and cost.

Fermentation Scale-Up bridges bench-scale biology to industrial manufacturing. Laboratory fermenters operate at 1-10 liters; commercial production occurs at 100,000-500,000 liters. Scale-up introduces challenges in oxygen transfer, heat dissipation, mixing dynamics, and contamination control that can invalidate performance metrics established at smaller scales. The industry rule of thumb suggests that only 30-40% of laboratory titers translate to demonstration scale without significant re-optimization.

Downstream Processing extracts and purifies target molecules from fermentation broth. For high-value products like pharmaceutical intermediates, purification may represent 50-70% of manufacturing cost. For commodity chemicals, economically viable downstream processing requires novel separation technologies that synthetic biology companies increasingly develop in-house.

Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provide the analytical frameworks for evaluating commercial viability and sustainability credentials. A rigorous TEA models production costs across capital expenditure, operating expenditure, and feedstock procurement. LCA quantifies environmental impacts across categories including global warming potential, eutrophication, and land use change—essential for substantiating sustainability claims to customers and regulators.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

The platform-as-service model has demonstrated commercial resilience. Ginkgo Bioworks, operating the world's largest biofoundry, provides strain engineering services to corporate partners rather than commercializing its own products. This approach distributes commercialization risk to partners with established manufacturing and distribution capabilities. Ginkgo's May 2025 partnership with Bayer exemplifies this model—co-developing microbial strains for sustainable agriculture while Bayer retains responsibility for regulatory approval and market access.

Focused applications targeting high-value, low-volume products have achieved profitability. Amyris successfully commercialized squalene for cosmetics, commanding $1,000-3,000 per kilogram compared to $30-50 for petroleum-derived alternatives. Similarly, Codexis has built a sustainable business engineering enzymes for pharmaceutical manufacturing, where customers pay premium prices for stereoselective catalysts that simplify complex syntheses.

Integration of artificial intelligence has accelerated development timelines. Twist Bioscience's April 2025 next-generation DNA synthesis platform achieves 99.9% sequence accuracy at 90% lower cost than previous technologies. Capgemini's protein language model (pLLM) has demonstrated 99% reduction in experimental data requirements for protein design. These advances compress strain development cycles from years to months, fundamentally improving the economics of bio-based manufacturing.

What's Not Working

Direct product commercialization without manufacturing partnerships has proven treacherous. Zymergen, once valued at over $3 billion, collapsed in 2021 after failing to commercialize Hyaline, a polymer film for electronics. The company's attempt to vertically integrate from strain engineering through manufacturing and sales overwhelmed its organizational capabilities. Ginkgo subsequently acquired Zymergen's assets for $300 million—a 90% discount from peak valuation—illustrating how quickly market confidence can evaporate when commercialization timelines slip.

Commodity chemical production remains economically challenged. Bio-based routes to molecules like 1,3-propanediol, succinic acid, and butanediol have achieved technical success but struggle against petrochemical incumbents benefiting from decades of process optimization and fully depreciated capital equipment. Without carbon pricing or regulatory mandates, bio-based alternatives face persistent cost disadvantages of 20-50%.

Scale-up failures continue to plague the industry. The gap between laboratory performance and industrial production represents systemic risk. Companies routinely announce impressive laboratory titers that fail to replicate at demonstration scale. Investors have become increasingly skeptical of claims lacking third-party validation at relevant production volumes.

Sector-Specific KPIs

KPI	Poor	Acceptable	Good	Leading
Production Titer (g/L)	<10	10-50	50-100	>100
Yield on Feedstock (g/g)	<0.2	0.2-0.4	0.4-0.6	>0.6
Volumetric Productivity (g/L/h)	<0.5	0.5-1.5	1.5-3.0	>3.0
Scale-Up Titer Retention (%)	<30	30-50	50-70	>70
Time to Commercial Strain (years)	>5	3-5	2-3	<2
GHG Reduction vs. Petrochemical (%)	<30	30-50	50-70	>70

Key Players

Established Leaders

Ginkgo Bioworks (NYSE: DNA) operates the dominant horizontal platform in synthetic biology, processing over 100,000 strain designs annually through its automated biofoundry. The company's asset-light model generates revenue through cell engineering fees, downstream royalties, and equity stakes in customer ventures.

Novozymes (now part of Novonesis following its 2023 merger with Chr. Hansen) represents the established leader in industrial enzymes, commanding 48% global market share. The company's fermentation expertise spans seven decades, providing manufacturing capabilities that startups cannot easily replicate.

BASF has committed €400 million annually to biotechnology R&D, operating production-scale fermentation facilities in Germany and the United States. The chemical giant's 2024 partnership with Cargill expanded its bio-based polymer portfolio targeting packaging applications.

DSM-Firmenich integrates fermentation-derived ingredients across nutrition, health, and fragrance verticals, achieving $12 billion in 2024 revenues with approximately 25% derived from bio-based manufacturing.

Emerging Startups

Solugen raised $357 million in Series D funding (2024) plus a $214 million Department of Energy loan guarantee, validating its chemoenzymatic platform producing carbon-negative industrial chemicals. The company's Minnesota facility, opening in 2025, will produce 75,000 tons annually of glucaric acid and related products.

Modern Meadow has commercialized Bio-Alloy™, a biomaterial platform producing leather alternatives with 90% lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional leather. The technology underpins Tory Burch's 2024 accessories line.

LanzaTech has pioneered gas fermentation, converting industrial waste gases (steel mill emissions, refinery off-gases) into ethanol and chemical intermediates. The January 2025 spin-out of LanzaX as a dedicated synthetic biology platform signals accelerating commercialization ambitions.

Cambrium secured $20 million in Series A funding to develop AI-designed proteins with properties unachievable through natural evolution, targeting applications in textiles, cosmetics, and advanced materials.

Key Investors & Funders

IndieBio (SOSV) has accelerated over 50 synthetic biology companies annually, with portfolio companies including Geltor ($91 million raised) and MycoWorks ($125 million Series C).

Cantos Ventures led Solugen's $357 million Series D, demonstrating appetite for later-stage investments in industrial biotechnology at scale.

Lowercarbon Capital has backed unconventional applications including Cemvita Factory ($20 million Series B) developing oil-consuming microbes for remediation and carbon-negative oil production.

BioMADE (the U.S. Department of Defense's Manufacturing Innovation Institute for bioindustrial manufacturing) has deployed $450 million supporting domestic biomanufacturing capacity, with particular emphasis on defense-relevant materials.

Examples

Solugen's Bioforge Model: Solugen's Houston facility demonstrates integrated chemoenzymatic manufacturing, combining engineered enzymes with catalytic chemistry to produce glucaric acid, gluconic acid, and hydrogen peroxide from plant sugars. The company's carbon-negative products—verified through third-party LCA—have secured contracts with Kurita America for water treatment and multiple construction companies for concrete admixtures. The $214 million DOE loan guarantee validates government confidence in the technology's maturity.
Modern Meadow's Fashion Partnership: Modern Meadow's collaboration with Tory Burch illustrates how bio-based materials can penetrate luxury markets where sustainability credentials command premium pricing. The Bio-Alloy™ platform produces collagen proteins through precision fermentation, assembled into materials mimicking leather's tactile and performance characteristics while eliminating the environmental footprint of cattle agriculture. Tory Burch's 2024 handbag collection using Bio-Alloy™ reportedly sold out within weeks, demonstrating consumer acceptance of bio-fabricated materials.
LanzaTech's Industrial Gas Fermentation: LanzaTech has commercialized technology converting carbon monoxide and CO2 from steel mills into ethanol and specialty chemicals. The company's partnerships with ArcelorMittal in Belgium and Shougang Group in China demonstrate proven industrial scale, with the Belgian facility producing 80 million liters annually. The January 2025 LanzaX spin-out positions the company to license its platform for broader chemical applications beyond ethanol.

Action Checklist

Conduct materiality assessment identifying which product lines face greatest emissions exposure and could benefit from bio-based substitution
Map existing supply chain dependencies on petrochemical feedstocks, quantifying volume, spend, and carbon intensity for prioritization
Engage with platform providers (Ginkgo Bioworks, Twist Bioscience) to evaluate strain engineering options before committing to in-house R&D
Establish techno-economic models with realistic assumptions for scale-up titer retention (30-50% as baseline) and timeline buffers (2x laboratory projections)
Develop LCA methodology aligned with ISO 14040/14044 and PAS 2050 standards, enabling credible sustainability claims for bio-based products
Evaluate offtake agreements or pilot partnerships with bio-based material startups to de-risk technology adoption before capital-intensive manufacturing investments
Build internal fermentation expertise through academic partnerships, targeted hiring, or technology licensing—manufacturing knowledge gaps frequently constrain scaling

FAQ

Q: How do bio-based materials compare economically to petrochemical alternatives?

A: Economics vary significantly by application. For high-value, low-volume products (specialty enzymes, pharmaceutical intermediates, premium cosmetic ingredients), bio-based routes are often cost-competitive or cost-advantaged today. Commodity chemicals remain challenging, with bio-based alternatives typically carrying 20-50% cost premiums absent carbon pricing or regulatory incentives. The economic trajectory favors bio-based manufacturing as DNA synthesis costs continue declining and fermentation processes mature, but crossover timing depends heavily on specific molecules and competitive petroleum pricing.

Q: What is the typical timeline from laboratory proof-of-concept to commercial production?

A: Industry benchmarks suggest 5-7 years from initial strain construction to commercial-scale manufacturing, though this varies substantially with product complexity and regulatory requirements. Strain optimization typically consumes 2-3 years; scale-up and process development require an additional 2-3 years; regulatory approval and manufacturing commissioning add 1-2 years. Teams should build contingency for the common pattern of scale-up challenges invalidating laboratory performance metrics.

Q: How should sustainability teams evaluate the environmental claims of bio-based materials?

A: Rigorous evaluation requires third-party verified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conforming to ISO 14040/14044 standards, with transparent system boundaries and allocation methodologies. Key questions include: What feedstock is used, and what land-use change does it induce? What energy sources power fermentation and downstream processing? How does end-of-life treatment affect overall impact? Credible suppliers provide granular data enabling apples-to-apples comparison with incumbent materials; those offering only marketing claims without underlying analysis warrant skepticism.

Q: What are the primary risks in partnering with synthetic biology startups?

A: Technology risk centers on scale-up failure—laboratory performance frequently does not translate to industrial production. Commercial risk includes timeline slippage, cost overruns, and potential company failure before reaching production milestones. Supply chain risk emerges from single-source dependencies on nascent manufacturing infrastructure. Mitigation strategies include milestone-based contracting, technical due diligence with independent fermentation experts, and portfolio approaches partnering with multiple providers across development stages.

Q: How are regulatory frameworks evolving for bio-based materials and chemicals?

A: The regulatory landscape is fragmenting. The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates engineered microorganisms under EPA oversight, with a 2024 update streamlining approval for well-characterized host organisms. The European Union applies contained-use and deliberate-release directives with member-state variation in implementation stringency. Novel food applications (cultivated meat, precision fermentation proteins) face additional EFSA or FDA approval pathways. Forward-looking teams engage regulatory consultants early in development to avoid approval delays that can extend timelines by 12-24 months.

Sources

Grand View Research. "Synthetic Biology Market Size & Share Report, 2025-2033." Accessed January 2026.
SynBioBeta. "2025 Investment Report: The State of Synthetic Biology Investment." January 2026.
Straits Research. "Synthetic Biology Market Size & Outlook, 2025-2033." Accessed January 2026.
Nature Biotechnology. "Industrial Biotechnology: Environmental Benefits of Bio-Based Manufacturing." Volume 42, 2024.
U.S. Department of Energy. "National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative Progress Report." December 2024.
MIT Technology Review. "2024 Climate Tech Companies to Watch: Solugen and Its Bio-Based Chemicals." October 2024.
Chemical & Engineering News. "Government Funding Advances Biomanufacturing in the US." August 2024.
Coherent Market Insights. "Synthetic Biology Market Size and YoY Growth Rate, 2025-2032." Accessed January 2026.