Inside enormous fermentation tanks, microorganisms feed on sugar and multiply. Yet these facilities are not producing beer or yogurt. They are making ingredients for antimalarial drugs, cosmetic compounds, and chemicals used in textiles and plastics. As living organisms become industrial production systems, the long-established rules of manufacturing are beginning to change.

***

A factory usually brings to mind a landscape of steel pipes, conveyor belts, and robotic arms. Raw materials enter, machines process them in a predetermined sequence, and finished products emerge from the final stage. In the factories of the future, however, the production equipment itself may be alive. Microorganisms too small to be seen by the naked eye consume raw materials and trigger chemical reactions inside their cells to produce substances that humans need.

Using microorganisms in manufacturing is nothing new. For thousands of years, humans have used yeast to make bread and alcohol and lactic acid bacteria to produce cheese and yogurt. Traditional fermentation used the natural abilities of microorganisms found in the environment. Modern synthetic biology has gone one step further. Instead of merely finding and using microorganisms created by nature, it redesigns their genetic information and metabolic pathways so that cells produce specific substances.

What happens inside a cell resembles a complex manufacturing process. Genes function as work instructions, while enzymes operate like production equipment that processes raw materials step by step. The sugars and nutrients absorbed by a cell pass through a series of chemical reactions and are converted into proteins, pharmaceutical compounds, fragrances, or industrial materials. Researchers block unnecessary pathways and reinforce useful ones so that more of the target substance is produced.

In the past, this process took a considerable amount of time. Researchers had to modify a few genes, examine the results, and redesign the organism if the experiment failed. Today, DNA synthesis, gene editing, laboratory automation, and artificial intelligence make it possible to test hundreds or thousands of designs simultaneously. Robots create and cultivate different strains and measure their output, while artificial intelligence analyzes the results and proposes the next set of candidates.

As the cycle of “design, build, test, and learn” accelerates, biology is moving from an observational science to a design technology. An era has begun in which microbial metabolic circuits can be designed much like semiconductor engineers design electronic circuits. This is why synthetic biology is being described as a foundational technology for the next generation of manufacturing.

A living factory, however, behaves differently from a machine. Microorganisms do not exist to make products for humans; they act to survive and reproduce. If they are engineered to spend too much energy producing a substance, their growth may slow. During prolonged cultivation, mutations may also emerge that reduce their production capacity. Cells can be excellent producers, but they are not always obedient ones.

One of the cases that brought the potential of synthetic biology to global attention involved artemisinin, an antimalarial drug. Artemisinin-based treatments originally depended on a compound extracted from sweet wormwood, but this agricultural supply system was unstable. Output varied according to the cultivated area and the harvest, while prices repeatedly rose and fell as farmers expanded planting in response to shortages and then faced oversupply. Securing a stable supply of raw materials was a serious concern in regions where the treatment was urgently needed.

Researchers modified the genetic information of yeast so that it could produce a precursor of artemisinin. A substance that plants had created through a complex series of biological steps could now be produced by yeast inside a fermentation tank. This was more than a laboratory achievement. It demonstrated that engineered microorganisms could manufacture complex pharmaceutical compounds previously obtained only in small quantities from nature.

The future suggested by this case was compelling. If compounds that once depended on medicinal plants or rare organisms found in particular regions could be produced year-round in fermentation facilities, supply chains could become far more stable. It could also reduce exposure to climate change, disease, and shifts in cultivation acreage while opening a path toward the repeated production of raw materials with consistent quality.

The artemisinin case, however, revealed both the promise and the limitations of synthetic biology. Even when production was technically successful, fermentation was not always cheaper than existing agricultural sources. If the price of the natural ingredient fell, the competitiveness of the fermentation process could weaken. The effects of a new production method on existing farmers and market structures also had to be considered. The case challenged the simple assumption that a successful laboratory technology would immediately replace an established market.

Even so, the use of biomanufacturing in pharmaceuticals steadily expanded. Insulin, vaccines, antibodies, hormones, and enzymes were already being produced through cell culture and fermentation. Synthetic biology began to move beyond conventional biopharmaceutical production and brought rare natural products, complex small molecules, novel proteins, and nucleic-acid ingredients into the realm of manufacturing.

Nature contains an abundance of substances that could become pharmaceutical candidates, but discovering one does not mean that it can immediately be developed into a drug. When a compound exists only in trace quantities in a plant or marine organism, obtaining even enough material for research can be difficult. In other cases, chemical synthesis requires too many reaction steps or struggles to produce only the desired molecular structure.

Microorganisms can serve as miniature production lines that assemble such complex molecules. By identifying the genes and enzymes responsible for producing a substance and installing the corresponding pathway inside a cell, manufacturers can secure the compound without harvesting large quantities of rare biological resources. It also becomes possible to go beyond reproducing natural molecules and create related compounds whose structures have been modified to improve their efficacy and stability.

For pharmaceutical companies, biomanufacturing represents more than a production technology. Even after discovering a promising compound, a company cannot move into clinical trials and commercialization unless it can manufacture a stable supply of the necessary material. What can be produced repeatedly, alongside what can be discovered, defines the boundaries of drug development. Synthetic biology has emerged as a means of reducing the bottleneck between discovery and manufacturing.

Synthetic biology’s next target is a market far larger than pharmaceuticals. Industrial materials?including plastics, textiles, adhesives, coatings, cosmetic ingredients, and fragrances?have begun to move into fermentation tanks. The aim is to engineer microorganisms to produce substances that have traditionally been manufactured by refining crude oil and carrying out a series of chemical reactions.

Over the past century, the petrochemical industry has supplied nearly all the materials that define modern life. Chemicals derived from petroleum can be found in clothing and shoes, automobile interiors, smartphone components, packaging, paints, and detergents. The industry has achieved enormous scale and high efficiency, but it has also carried the burdens of fossil-resource dependence and carbon emissions.

Biomanufacturing offers an alternative route through this long-established supply chain. Microorganisms can be engineered to consume plant-derived sugars, agricultural by-products, or waste and convert them into useful chemicals. Technologies that use gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane as carbon sources are also being developed. The broader ambition is to create a circular system in which carbon once emitted from factory smokestacks returns as a raw material for new products.

Some products made through these methods have already entered everyday life. Hyaluronic acid, widely known as a moisturizing ingredient in cosmetics, was once extracted from animal tissue, but the expansion of microbial fermentation improved production efficiency and supply stability. Some fragrances and cosmetic compounds previously obtained from plants can now be produced by engineered yeast. Animal-free collagen, leather alternatives, and fibers inspired by the strength and elasticity of spider silk have also become candidates for biomanufacturing.

The most intriguing possibility is not simply reproducing existing products in exactly the same form. By combining biological functions in new ways, manufacturers may be able to design materials that are difficult to create through petrochemical processes. Candidates include lightweight but strong fibers, adhesives that bond under particular conditions, and packaging materials that remain durable during use but decompose after disposal. This is why biomanufacturing is regarded not merely as an environmentally friendly alternative but also as a platform for creating entirely new materials.

Corporate interest cannot be explained by carbon reduction alone. Natural ingredients are vulnerable to geographical concentration, seasonal fluctuations, and inconsistent quality. Supplies can also be disrupted suddenly by geopolitical conflict, pandemics, or transportation breakdowns. Producing ingredients with microorganisms close to where they are needed could shorten supply chains and reduce dependence on particular countries.

For consumer-goods companies, the technology also creates an opportunity to tell a new product story. Cosmetics made without animal-derived ingredients, fragrances produced without damaging rare plants, and textiles that reduce reliance on fossil fuels offer values that consumers can recognize. The production method itself becomes a source of brand differentiation.

The label “bio-based,” however, does not automatically make a product environmentally sustainable. Producing the sugar used to feed microorganisms requires farmland, water, and fertilizer. Energy is also consumed in supplying oxygen to fermentation tanks, regulating temperature, and separating the final product. When yields are low, more raw materials and larger facilities are required to make the same amount of product.

Environmental performance therefore has to be assessed across the entire life cycle, from raw-material cultivation to production, transportation, use, and disposal. Merely emphasizing that petroleum was not used is not enough. The actual environmental benefits depend on the carbon source, the amount of energy consumed, and the treatment of production by-products and wastewater.

The success or failure of synthetic biology is determined less in a sophisticated laboratory than inside an enormous fermentation tank. Producing a target substance in a small flask is undoubtedly important. From a manufacturing perspective, however, it is only the starting line. A microorganism that performs well in a few milliliters of culture may not behave the same way in a fermentation tank containing tens or hundreds of thousands of liters.

In a small container, temperature, oxygen, and nutrients can remain relatively uniform. A large fermentation tank is a different environment. Oxygen levels, temperature, and acidity may vary between the top and bottom or the center and outer edges of the vessel. As microorganisms circulate through the tank, they repeatedly move between areas rich in nutrients and areas where nutrients are scarce. A strain that shows outstanding productivity in the laboratory may fail to withstand this stress and stop producing at industrial scale.

Contamination presents an even greater threat. If another microorganism enters the vessel, it can consume the raw materials or ruin the entire production batch. The plant then has to discard the culture, clean the equipment, and verify the system again, all while production remains suspended. Maximum output attracts attention during development, but in a factory, the ability to deliver the same result across hundreds of production runs may matter more.

Sometimes producing the substance is easier than extracting it from the fermentation broth. At the end of cultivation, the liquid contains not only the target substance but also cells, water, nutrients, and by-products. If the concentration of the desired material is low or its properties closely resemble those of other compounds, separation becomes more complicated and costs rise sharply. A business may lose during separation and purification all the gains achieved through fermentation.

This is why three figures matter in biomanufacturing. Yield indicates how much of the raw material a microorganism converts into the desired product. Productivity measures how much is produced within a given period and space, while titer refers to the concentration of the target substance in the fermentation broth. Purification recovery rates, energy consumption, and facility utilization must also be considered before the true manufacturing cost becomes clear.

The requirements become even more demanding when a company enters the commodity-materials market. Pharmaceuticals and premium cosmetic ingredients can command high prices even at low production volumes. Plastics and industrial chemicals, by contrast, are traded in enormous quantities at low prices. The fact that a microorganism can produce an impressive substance is not enough to compete with an established petrochemical process. Low-cost feedstocks, high yields, simple purification, and stable mass production must all be achieved at the same time.

Many of the difficulties previously faced by synthetic biology companies arose at this stage. Some invested in large production facilities on the strength of laboratory results and market expectations, only to discover that output and costs fell short of their targets. Others experienced financial strain after trying to move too quickly from a single high-value product into commodity markets. A product that can be made technically is not necessarily a product that can be sold economically.

These failures did not signal the end of synthetic biology. Instead, they demonstrated that biomanufacturing remains subject to the unforgiving rules of manufacturing. Excellent strain design and strong patents cannot run a factory on their own. Process engineering, quality management, raw-material procurement, customer contracts, facility investment, and cash flow are just as important as the technology itself.

Biomanufacturing companies have begun to adjust their strategies in response to these lessons. Rather than building enormous factories from the outset, more companies are gradually increasing production scale in pilot facilities and working with specialized contract manufacturers. Many are also seeking commercial viability first in pharmaceutical ingredients and specialty materials, where small quantities can command higher prices, instead of immediately entering low-priced commodity markets.

Biomanufacturing is difficult to complete through the efforts of one brilliant scientist or a single high-performing start-up. Companies that synthesize DNA, businesses that engineer microorganisms, platforms that operate robotic laboratories, manufacturers responsible for fermentation and purification, and pharmaceutical, chemical, and consumer-goods companies that purchase the finished products all need to work together. Unless the final customer participates from an early stage, the result may be a technically excellent product that the market does not want.

A division of labor resembling the semiconductor industry may emerge. Instead of every company owning production facilities, some may focus on strain design while others specialize in manufacturing. If biofoundries and flexible production facilities capable of handling multiple products become more widely available, small companies could test their technologies and enter the market without making enormous capital investments in factories.

The value of a biomanufacturing plant is not determined by the size of its tanks alone. Its ability to handle different microorganisms and processes, prevent contamination, analyze cultivation conditions in real time, and rapidly adapt purification processes for different products is also crucial. Even facilities with similar fermentation equipment can have very different levels of competitiveness depending on the operational data they have accumulated.

Data has become a critical asset for improving microorganisms. The next design depends on knowing which combinations of genes perform well under particular conditions, when productivity declines during cultivation, and how behavior changes between a laboratory flask and a large fermentation tank. Artificial intelligence can use these records to recommend strains and process conditions with a higher probability of success.

The combination of biomanufacturing and artificial intelligence does more than accelerate research. By feeding production data back into strain design, it reduces the divide between laboratory development and industrial manufacturing. A problem discovered in a factory becomes a design requirement for the next generation of microorganisms, and the improved microorganisms then increase process efficiency. This creates a continuous cycle of learning and refinement.

The workforce required by the industry must also change. Biologists may understand cells but be unfamiliar with fluid dynamics and heat transfer inside large fermentation tanks. Chemical engineers may understand production processes but overlook how cells respond to stress. Data scientists, quality and regulatory specialists, and supply-chain professionals must participate from the beginning if a laboratory achievement is to become a commercial product.

When evaluating synthetic biology, companies need to examine the economics of the target product before the novelty of the technology. Natural products with unstable supplies, high prices, and complex molecular structures can be promising candidates. Products that require numerous steps or hazardous substances under conventional chemical processes may also be worth converting to biological production. By contrast, products with very low prices and highly optimized existing processes may struggle to compete without years of technological improvement.

Long-term purchase agreements between synthetic biology companies and prospective customers are becoming increasingly important. Producers find it difficult to invest in large facilities without guaranteed buyers, while customers hesitate to replace existing suppliers before consistent quality and volume have been demonstrated. Both sides must share target prices and production requirements early and distribute the risks if a new process is to secure a lasting place in the market.

At some point, biomanufacturing moved beyond the language of science and technology policy and entered the vocabulary of industrial security. The pandemic demonstrated that the ability to produce pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and critical ingredients was directly connected to a nation’s capacity to respond to crises. Geopolitical conflict and logistics disruptions also revealed how easily supply chains concentrated in a small number of countries could be shaken.

If engineered microorganisms and fermentation facilities make it possible to produce necessary ingredients domestically or in nearby regions, supply chains can become more diversified. A single production base may also be able to manufacture different substances by changing the strains and processes it uses. This flexibility has helped biomanufacturing attract attention as a new form of distributed manufacturing infrastructure.

Major economies, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have treated synthetic biology and biomanufacturing as strategic industries, seeking to connect research and development with production facilities, standards, and workforce training. The measure of competitiveness has begun to shift from the number of papers and patents to actual manufacturing capacity. Even the most advanced strain may generate industrial value elsewhere if its home country lacks the facilities and personnel needed to scale production to thousands of liters and beyond.

South Korea possesses a foundation it could use in this competition. Through contract biopharmaceutical manufacturing, the country has accumulated experience in large-scale cell cultivation and rigorous quality control. It also has a strong manufacturing base in petrochemicals, fine chemicals, and advanced materials. Its food and cosmetics industries possess longstanding fermentation expertise and brands capable of reaching global markets.

Connecting these capabilities could allow South Korea to move beyond biopharmaceutical manufacturing into pharmaceutical ingredients, functional materials, and fine chemicals. Researchers in the life sciences and specialists in chemical processing would need to develop technologies together, while large corporations’ manufacturing and sales capabilities could be combined with start-ups’ expertise in strain design. Biomanufacturing needs to be understood not as a single industry but as a foundational technology connecting multiple industries.

Success in biopharmaceuticals, however, will not automatically be repeated in industrial materials. Pharmaceuticals and commodity chemicals have very different price structures, production scales, and regulatory requirements. Pharmaceuticals depend on high purity and rigorous quality control, while industrial materials demand overwhelming cost competitiveness and mass-production capability. Different industrial strategies are required even when similar fermentation technologies are involved.

Public policy must also move beyond research grants. The most difficult stage for companies lies between confirming a technology’s potential in the laboratory and reaching commercial production. New problems emerge each time production expands from tens to hundreds and then thousands of liters, but private companies may struggle to bear all the costs when the prospects of success remain uncertain.

This is why the industry needs shared pilot-production facilities, process specialists, and standardized testing methods. Policies through which governments and public institutions create initial demand or support long-term purchasing could also reduce the distance between technology and the market. If strains developed in domestic laboratories are to lead to domestic manufacturing rather than migrate to production facilities overseas, infrastructure for scaling up production must be established.

Safety and public trust are equally essential. Engineered microorganisms must be prevented from escaping production facilities, and the strains and raw materials used in manufacturing must be traceable. A product should not be assumed to be environmentally friendly or safe simply because it is bio-based. Exaggerated promotion may attract attention in the short term, but a serious problem could undermine confidence in the entire industry.

Synthetic biology will not transform the face of manufacturing overnight. Petrochemical processes have accumulated infrastructure, supply chains, and cost advantages over many decades and remain highly competitive across a wide range of products. It is unrealistic to expect biomanufacturing to replace every chemical plant.

Change is more likely to begin with products that are difficult to manufacture through conventional processes or vulnerable to unstable supplies. Rare pharmaceutical compounds, high-value cosmetic ingredients, complex fine chemicals, and materials with novel properties may be the first to move into biological production. As experience accumulates and costs fall, the technology could expand into larger markets.

Companies now need to ask two questions. Instead of beginning with what microorganisms can make, they should first identify the most vulnerable points in their existing supply chains. Rather than asking only whether something can be produced technically, they should determine whether it can be supplied more reliably, economically, and sustainably than existing products.

The winners in the biomanufacturing race may not be the companies that announce the most astonishing microorganisms. They are more likely to be the ones that transfer strain performance into a stable process, connect factory output with customer demand, and demonstrate environmental performance and safety objectively. The ability to translate scientific discovery into the language of manufacturing has become decisive.

Inside enormous fermentation tanks, microorganisms continue to consume sugars and nutrients and produce valuable substances. Today, they are active mainly in areas such as pharmaceuticals, fragrances, and cosmetic ingredients. In the future, they may expand into textiles, adhesives, packaging, and fine chemicals. Living production systems have begun to enter factories once defined entirely by steel and machinery.

The competition over the future of manufacturing does not end with the ability to engineer living organisms. A success measured in a single drop must be expanded into thousands of tons of product and supplied at consistent quality and a reasonable price. The transformation promised by synthetic biology will become real not when a microorganism produces an intriguing substance, but when that substance leaves the factory and enters industry and everyday life through a stable supply chain.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, March 2023, Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing: Harnessing Research and Development to Further Societal Goals

UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, December 2023, National Vision for Engineering Biology

National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 2024, Elena Romantseva et al., Challenges in Scale-Up and Automation Workshop Report

Nature Reviews Bioengineering, April 2025, Giusi Favoino, Oscar Puiggene and Pablo I. Nikel, A Blueprint for Designing the Next Generation of Synthetic C1 Microbes

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, July 2025, Synthetic Biology for Biomanufacturing and Predictable Biosecurity Applications