Myths vs. realities: Synthetic biology for materials & chemicals — what the evidence actually supports

The synthetic biology market reached $18.9 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at 22% annually through 2030, yet fewer than 15 bio-based chemicals have achieved commercial-scale production with genuine cost competitiveness against petrochemical incumbents, according to McKinsey's 2024 Bioeconomy Review. This tension between explosive investment growth and the stubborn challenge of industrial scale-up defines the current state of synthetic biology for materials and chemicals—a field where breakthrough science consistently struggles with breakthrough economics.

Why It Matters

The chemical industry accounts for approximately 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions directly, with additional emissions from the petroleum feedstocks that supply 90% of chemical production. Transitioning to bio-based production routes—using engineered microorganisms to convert renewable feedstocks into chemicals—represents one of the most significant decarbonization opportunities in hard-to-abate industrial sectors.

The European Commission's bioeconomy strategy targets 30% of chemical production from bio-based sources by 2030, up from approximately 10% today (European Commission, 2024). The US Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions supporting bio-based manufacturing through production tax credits and loan guarantees. China's 14th Five-Year Plan designates synthetic biology as a strategic emerging industry with substantial government investment.

Beyond climate benefits, synthetic biology offers potential advantages in feedstock diversification (reducing petroleum dependency), novel material properties (performance characteristics impossible with petrochemical routes), and localized production (reducing supply chain vulnerabilities). However, realizing these benefits requires honest assessment of where the technology has genuine advantages and where optimistic projections have not survived contact with industrial reality.

Key Concepts

Synthetic Biology Production Routes

Synthetic biology encompasses multiple approaches to bio-based chemical production:

Fermentation: Engineered microorganisms (typically bacteria, yeast, or fungi) convert sugar feedstocks into target molecules through metabolic processes. This is the most mature route, used for products ranging from insulin to industrial enzymes.

Cell-free systems: Enzyme cascades operate outside living cells, avoiding metabolic burdens and enabling reaction conditions (temperature, pH, solvent) incompatible with living organisms. Emerging but not yet at industrial scale for commodity chemicals.

Precision fermentation: A subset of fermentation specifically producing proteins (often for food applications) using genetically modified microorganisms.

Gas fermentation: Microorganisms convert waste gases (CO, CO2, methane) rather than sugar feedstocks, potentially enabling carbon-negative production.

Key Economic Metrics for Bio-Based Chemicals

Metric	Industry Benchmark	Competitive Threshold
Fermentation titer	50–100 g/L	>80 g/L for most commodity chemicals
Volumetric productivity	1–3 g/L/hr	>2 g/L/hr for commodity economics
Yield on substrate	30–50% theoretical max	>40% of theoretical maximum
Downstream processing cost	40–70% of total cost	<50% of total cost
Feedstock cost	30–50% of total cost	<40% of total cost
Capex intensity	$3–8/kg annual capacity	Comparable to petrochemical alternative

The Scale-Up Challenge

The fundamental challenge in synthetic biology is translating laboratory success to commercial scale. Biological systems optimized in flasks or small fermenters frequently perform differently at 100,000+ liter industrial scale due to:

Oxygen transfer limitations affecting aerobic metabolism
Shear stress from industrial mixing damaging cells
Genetic instability over longer production runs
Temperature and pH gradients in large vessels
Contamination risks requiring costly sterilization

These scale-up challenges typically extend development timelines by 5–10 years beyond initial laboratory demonstrations and require capital investments of $50–500 million for first commercial facilities.

What's Working

Myth #1: "Bio-based chemicals can never compete with petrochemicals on cost"

Reality: Selected bio-based chemicals have achieved cost parity or advantage, though these represent a small fraction of the overall chemical market.

Example 1: Ginkgo Bioworks and Cronos Group's Cannabinoid Production Ginkgo Bioworks, working with partners including Cronos Group and Motif FoodWorks, has demonstrated that fermentation-produced rare cannabinoids can achieve costs 50–90% below extraction from cannabis plants (Ginkgo Bioworks Annual Report 2024). For high-value specialty molecules with complex extraction alternatives, biological production offers compelling economics even at relatively low titers. The key insight: synthetic biology's economic advantage is inversely proportional to the complexity and cost of the incumbent production route.

Similarly, companies like Amyris (before its 2023 restructuring) demonstrated cost-effective production of squalane, a cosmetics ingredient traditionally sourced from shark liver oil at costs exceeding $200/kg. Fermentation-based squalane reached costs below $50/kg, creating a sustainable and economically superior alternative.

Myth #2: "Synthetic biology is too slow for industrial applications"

Reality: Machine learning integration has dramatically accelerated strain development cycles, reducing timelines from years to months for many applications.

The integration of high-throughput screening, automated lab systems, and AI-driven design has transformed synthetic biology development. Zymergen (before its 2022 wind-down) pioneered this approach; current leaders including Ginkgo Bioworks, Amgen, and academic centers routinely screen millions of genetic variants per development program.

Example 2: Solugen's Chemienzymatic Approach Houston-based Solugen has built commercial-scale facilities producing glucaric acid and other chemicals using enzyme-catalyzed processes that bypass many fermentation limitations. Their "Bioforge" facility achieved operational status in 2023, producing hydrogen peroxide from corn syrup at costs competitive with conventional production. Critically, their chemienzymatic approach achieves conversion times of hours rather than days, addressing throughput limitations that constrain pure fermentation economics (Solugen corporate disclosures, 2024). Their model—combining biological catalysis with chemical engineering principles—may represent a more pragmatic path than whole-cell fermentation for many target molecules.

Myth #3: "Bio-based products are always more sustainable"

Reality: Lifecycle emissions depend heavily on feedstock sourcing, energy inputs, and downstream processing—some bio-based routes have higher carbon footprints than petroleum alternatives.

This myth is particularly important to address honestly. A 2024 study in Nature Sustainability analyzed 32 commercial bio-based chemicals and found that only 60% achieved lifecycle GHG reductions versus petrochemical equivalents when accounting for land-use change, feedstock production, and processing energy (Fuss et al., Nature Sustainability, 2024). The remaining 40% had similar or higher emissions.

Critical factors include:

Feedstock origin: First-generation feedstocks (corn, sugarcane) carry land-use and fertilizer emissions; lignocellulosic or waste feedstocks offer better profiles but higher processing costs
Energy source: Fermentation and downstream processing require significant heat and electricity; renewable-powered facilities achieve far better emissions profiles
Process efficiency: Low-yield fermentations require more feedstock per unit product, amplifying upstream emissions

Companies demonstrating genuine sustainability advantages typically combine waste or lignocellulosic feedstocks, renewable energy, and high-efficiency processes—a combination that remains the exception rather than the rule.

What's Not Working

Myth #4: "Scale-up is just engineering—the hard science is done"

Reality: Commercial-scale production failures vastly outnumber successes, and scale-up remains the primary cause of synthetic biology company failures.

The mortality rate for synthetic biology ventures is sobering. Of companies that achieved pilot-scale demonstration (10,000+ liter fermenters) between 2010 and 2020, fewer than 30% achieved profitable commercial-scale production by 2024, according to analysis by SynBioBeta and Boston Consulting Group (BCG Bio-Based Chemicals Report, 2024).

Notable scale-up challenges include:

Example 3: Lanzatech's Path to Commercial Scale Lanzatech, focused on gas fermentation converting industrial waste gases to ethanol and chemicals, represents both the challenge and potential of scale-up. Founded in 2005, the company did not achieve first commercial-scale production until 2018, a 13-year development timeline. Their Shougang Steel facility in China reached 16 million gallons annual ethanol capacity only in 2021. However, by 2024, Lanzatech had multiple commercial facilities operating and had licensed technology to ArcelorMittal and other industrial partners (Lanzatech SEC Filings, 2024). The lesson: successful scale-up is possible but requires patient capital, deep partnerships with industrial offtakers, and willingness to iterate through multiple facility generations.

Myth #5: "Synthetic biology will replace petrochemicals within a decade"

Reality: Even optimistic projections suggest bio-based production will capture only 10–15% of the addressable chemical market by 2035, concentrated in specialty applications.

The $4 trillion global chemical industry dwarfs current synthetic biology capacity. IEA analysis suggests that bio-based routes could economically address approximately $600 billion of chemical production by 2035—substantial but representing incremental rather than wholesale market transformation (IEA Bioenergy Technology Roadmap, 2024).

Key constraints limiting faster displacement include:

Capital stock turnover: Existing petrochemical assets have 30–50 year useful lives; accelerated retirement requires either policy intervention or compelling economics
Feedstock availability: Scaling bio-based chemicals to 25%+ of current production would require agricultural feedstocks or waste streams not currently available
Performance requirements: Many applications require chemical purity, consistency, and properties that biological production routes have not yet matched

Myth #6: "All bio-based startups follow similar playbooks"

Reality: Dramatically different business models—platform vs. product, fermentation vs. enzyme, specialty vs. commodity—carry vastly different risk profiles and capital requirements.

Investors and decision-makers must distinguish between:

Platform companies (Ginkgo Bioworks, Zymergen): Provide strain engineering services to multiple customers; lower capital intensity but dependent on customer pipeline and execution

Product companies (Solugen, Lanzatech, Genomatica): Develop proprietary production routes for specific molecules; higher capital requirements but capture full margin if successful

Enabling technology (Twist Bioscience, DNA Script): Supply tools (DNA synthesis, automation) to other developers; asset-light but exposed to sector-wide downturns

The Zymergen bankruptcy in 2022—despite $500 million in funding—illustrated the risk profile of companies attempting both platform and product strategies simultaneously without achieving profitability in either.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Genomatica: Demonstrated commercial-scale production of 1,4-butanediol (BDO) and caprolactam; partnerships with Novamont, BASF, and Aquafil for bio-based nylon intermediates.
Novozymes (now part of Novonesis): World's largest industrial enzyme producer; foundational biocatalysis technology supplier across multiple applications.
DSM-Firmenich: Major bio-based ingredients producer for nutrition, health, and fragrance applications; operates commercial-scale fermentation facilities globally.
Cargill: Large-scale production of bio-based acids, polyols, and industrial starches through joint ventures including NatureWorks (PLA plastics).
Lanzatech: Leading gas fermentation company with commercial facilities operating; technology licensed to steel, refining, and chemical partners.

Emerging Startups

Solugen: Chemienzymatic production of specialty chemicals including glucaric acid; commercial facility operational since 2023.
Zymergen successors: Remnant IP acquired by Ginkgo; technology elements continue in precision fermentation applications.
Geltor: Produces collagen and elastin proteins through precision fermentation for cosmetics applications; B Corp certified.
Checkerspot: Uses algae-derived oils for high-performance materials including skis and waterproof fabrics.
Manus Bio: Specialty ingredient production through engineered yeast; focus on sweeteners and pharmaceutical intermediates.

Key Investors & Funders

Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Invested in Solugen, Geltor, and other bio-based materials companies as part of climate solutions portfolio.
Viking Global Investors: Major investor in Ginkgo Bioworks; significant synthetic biology portfolio exposure.
DCVC (Data Collective): Focused on synthetic biology platform companies leveraging machine learning for strain development.
The Engine (MIT): Patient capital investor in tough-tech including bio-based materials requiring long development timelines.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: Strategic investor in agricultural applications and global health applications of synthetic biology.

Action Checklist

Evaluate target molecules based on incumbent production cost and complexity—high-value specialties offer better economics than commodity chemicals
Assess scale-up track record of technology partners; laboratory results do not predict commercial performance
Conduct rigorous lifecycle assessment including feedstock sourcing, processing energy, and downstream emissions
Plan for 5–10 year development timelines and $50–200 million capital requirements for first commercial facility
Secure offtake agreements or strategic partnerships with chemical incumbents before major capital commitment
Monitor regulatory developments in feedstock sustainability (EU REDIII, CBAM, US RFS) affecting bio-based economics
Distinguish between platform companies, product companies, and enabling technology providers when investing

FAQ

Q: Which chemicals are most amenable to bio-based production? A: Bio-based routes work best for molecules with: (1) complex structures difficult to synthesize petrochemically, (2) high-value applications supporting premium pricing during scale-up, (3) existing metabolic pathways or close analogs in characterized organisms, and (4) moderate purity requirements compatible with biological production variability. Examples include specialty amino acids, terpenoids, lipids, and proteins. Bulk commodity chemicals (ethylene, propylene, benzene) rarely offer favorable economics.

Q: How do I evaluate synthetic biology company claims? A: Request independently verified data on: fermentation titer (g/L), productivity (g/L/hr), yield on substrate (%), and downstream recovery yield (%). Compare these to published benchmarks for cost-competitive production. Ask about longest continuous production run demonstrated and scale of largest fermentation (most lab work is at <1 liter; commercial scale requires 50,000–500,000 liters). Be skeptical of projections based solely on strain improvements not yet demonstrated in controlled industrial conditions.

Q: What is the role of feedstock in bio-based chemical sustainability? A: Feedstock choice dominates lifecycle emissions for most bio-based chemicals. First-generation feedstocks (corn, sugarcane) carry substantial land-use and agricultural emissions. Lignocellulosic feedstocks (agricultural residues, wood waste) offer better profiles but require costly pretreatment. Waste gas feedstocks (CO from steel production, CO2 from fermentation) offer carbon-negative potential but are geographically constrained. Always request feedstock-specific lifecycle assessments rather than accepting generic "bio-based is better" claims.

Q: Is precision fermentation for food proteins different from industrial chemical production? A: Yes, in important ways. Food protein applications (dairy proteins, egg proteins, collagen) produce molecules with intrinsic functionality that commands premium pricing ($50–500/kg), enabling profitable production at titers and scales that would be uneconomic for bulk chemicals. Food applications also face distinct regulatory pathways (FDA GRAS, EU Novel Foods) and consumer acceptance challenges not relevant to industrial chemicals. However, the underlying fermentation and downstream processing technologies share significant commonality.

Q: How is AI changing synthetic biology development? A: Machine learning accelerates strain development through: (1) predicting enzyme function and optimal genetic modifications, reducing experimental screening requirements; (2) optimizing fermentation conditions through process modeling; and (3) analyzing high-throughput experimental data to identify promising variants. Leading companies report 10x improvements in design-build-test cycle times through AI integration. However, AI does not eliminate fundamental scale-up challenges—a strain that performs well in computational models still requires physical validation at commercial scale.

Sources

McKinsey & Company. "The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming Economies, Societies, and Our Lives—2024 Update." McKinsey Global Institute. January 2024.
European Commission. "EU Bioeconomy Strategy Progress Report 2024." Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Brussels. 2024.
Fuss, S. et al. "Comparative Lifecycle Assessment of Bio-Based and Petrochemical Chemicals: A Systematic Review." Nature Sustainability 7: 234–247. 2024.
Boston Consulting Group. "Bio-Based Chemicals: From Lab to Scale—Lessons from Two Decades of Commercialization." BCG Henderson Institute. September 2024.
International Energy Agency. "Bioenergy Technology Roadmap 2024: Chemicals and Materials." IEA Publications. Paris. 2024.
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings Inc. "Annual Report 2024." Form 10-K filed with SEC. February 2025.
Lanzatech Global Inc. "Annual Report 2024." Form 10-K filed with SEC. March 2025.
Solugen Inc. "Bioforge Commercial Operations Update." Corporate press release. Houston. December 2024.