For centuries, it has exploited natural resources by extracting ingredients from animals and plants.

數世紀以來，它通過從動物和植物中提取成分來獲得天然資源。

If you were to turn over one of the bottles that are probably in your bathroom, 8 out of 10 of each of the ingredients would be sourced through unsustainable methods.

如果你看看浴室裡任何一個瓶子的底部會發現，10個裡面有8個的成分都是透過非永續發展的方法提供的。

But with consumers now demanding more sustainable and ethical products...

但隨著現今消費者要求更多能降低對環境資源耗損以及更符合倫理道德的產品……

I'll be sharing those brands that are truly, truly, truly cruelty free.

我將分享那些真正、真正、真正零殘忍行為的品牌。

... could gene editing technology help the industry to clean up its act?

……基因編輯技術能否幫助停止這個行業種種有害的行為呢？

We're gonna be able to produce molecules that are better for the environment than getting them from their natural source.

我們將能夠生產出更有利於環境的分子，而不是從自然資源中獲得。

And could this ultimately make cosmetics cheaper?

而這最終能否使化妝品變得更便宜呢？

(Could cosmetics get a makeover?)

（化妝品行業是否將迎來全新的改造？）

Sharks⏤at the top of the marine food chain, they have few natural predators,

鯊魚──處於海洋食物鏈的頂端，它們幾乎沒有天然捕食者。

except humans, who have hunted them for the plentiful supply of an oil they produce in rich quantities called "squalene".

除了人類，人類獵殺鯊魚是為了獲取大量的叫“角鯊烯”的油。

Squalene, which is commonly turned into a chemical called "squalane", is a key ingredient in skincare products.

角鯊烯，通常會被轉變為一種叫做「角鯊烷」的化學物質， 是護膚品的一種關鍵成分。

Squalane is a chemical that has been used in the cosmetics industry for decades.

角鯊烷是一種已經被化妝品行業使用了數十年的化學物質。

If you've used sunscreen or if you've used moisturizer, chances are pretty good that that product contains squalane.

如果你有用過防曬霜或或保溼霜，那麼這些產品很有可能都含有角鯊烷。

There are no official figures for how many sharks have been killed annually in order to harvest their precious oil, but it's believed to be in the millions.

沒有官方數字說明每年有多少鯊魚因其珍貴的油而被捕殺，但據信數量達到百萬。

But one company has found a way to reduce this degradation of the oceans.

但有一家公司已經找到了減少這種惡化海洋行為的方法。

And it says this is a game changer for the whole industry.

而它表示這將使整個行業的遊戲規則改變。

Let's assume that there's about 10 grams per liter of squalene introduced at this very moment.

讓我們假設在此刻，有大約每升10克的角鯊烷被添加。

Sunil Chandran is a scientist at Californian biotech company, Amyris.

Sunil Chandran是加州一家叫Amyris生物技術公司內的一名科學家。

Amyris says it now supplies the majority of the world's squalane, all of it made in a lab, without any shark involvement.

根據Amyris的說法，現今全球大部分的角鯊烷都來源於其公司，而這些角鯊烷都是在實驗室中製造的，過程中沒有使用任何的鯊魚。

Worldwide, there's anywhere from, you know, 2,500 to 4,000 metric tons of squalane that's produced.

在全球，有2500到4000公噸的角鯊烷被生產。

Today, using the Amyris technology, we are right up supplying a little more than 2,000 metric tons.

利用Amyris的科技，我們現今能更供應比2000公噸再多一些的供應量。

And they're doing it with the latest in gene editing technology, using a field of science called "synthetic biology".

而他們正在使用最新的基因編輯技術來製作，屬於合成生物學科學。

Cosmetics brands have often used science to promote their products.

化妝品品牌經常利用科學來推廣其產品。

Here comes the science bit. Concentrate.

現在是科學的部分，注意好了。

And in this case, the science is impressive.

在這個情況下，科學確實很令人印象深刻。

Take the shark, which produces squalene in its liver using special proteins called "enzymes".

以鯊魚為例，它在其肝臟中使用稱為酶的特殊蛋白質生產角鯊烯。

Scientists are able to identify which of the shark's genes are responsible for producing those enzymes.

科學家們能夠確定這些酶是由鯊魚的哪些基因負責生產的。

Using the latest gene editing technology, they take a microbe, which is a tiny organism with the ability to self replicate, and break open its genome.

他們採取了一種具有自我複製能力微生物，並利用最新的基因編輯技術來打開其基因組。

Scientists insert the genetic code of the enzymes into the microbe, which is often yeast.

科學家們將酶的遺傳密碼插入這種通常是酵母的微生物中。

The yeast is placed in a fermentation vat and fed with sugar and other ingredients to fuel cell division and produce squalene or another molecule called "farnesyn".

這些酵母被放置在一個發酵缸中，加以糖和其他成分餵養以促進細胞分裂，並產生角鯊烯或另一種叫做「法尼基」的分子。

Sugar is used as the main energy source to fuel this reaction and the process has less environmental impact on the natural world than hunting sharks.

糖被作為主要的能量來源來推動這一反應，而這一過程比在自然界獵殺鯊魚產生的環境影響要小。

We can actually replace the production of all the squalene in the world.

我們實際上可以取代世界上所有角鯊烯的生產。

We can replace three million sharks that are killed by using sugar cane that's grown on one square kilometer of land. That's it.

僅僅通過在一平方公里的土地上種植的甘蔗，就能讓300萬條鯊魚免於捕殺。而僅僅是如此而已。

Since 2011, Amyris has been selling squalane to some of the biggest cosmetics companies in the world as well as in their own luxury brand, Biossance.

自2011年以來， Amyris一直在向世界上一些的化妝品公司巨頭來銷售角鯊烯，其中包含他們自己的奢侈品牌，Biossance。

Squalane has become an increasingly popular and well-known ingredient in skincare today, endorsed by celebrities and influencers alike.

角鯊烷已成為當今護膚品中越來越受歡迎和知名的成分，受到名人和社群紅人的認可。

My favorite squalane omega repair moisturizer.

我最喜歡的角鯊烯脂肪酸修復保溼乳液。

Squalene is just one of many ingredients used in the cosmetics industry which are extracted from animals.

角鯊烯只是化妝品行業從動物身上提取的眾多成分之一，

Face masks using collagen from cows, shampoos using keratin source from sheep, eye shadow colors from farmed crushed beetles...

用牛的膠原蛋白製成的面膜，用羊的角蛋白製成的洗髮精，用養殖甲蟲壓碎而成的眼影……

Consumers increasingly say they don't want animal-derived products.

越來越多消費者表示他們不想要動物源產品。

In the last decade or so, consumers have started becoming more aware of where the ingredients in the cosmetics are being sourced from,

在過去十年左右的時間裡，消費者開始更加關注化妝品中的成分來源，

and they are starting to demand that their products be animal-free, be ethically sourced, be sustainable.

他們開始要求產品中不含動物成分，並以合乎倫理道德的方式取得，同時不能破壞環境的永續發展。

Gene editing technology has the potential to replace all of these animal-derived ingredients.

基因編輯技術有可能取代所有這些取自動物的成分。

Some brands have moved away from animal sourcing and replaced ingredients such as fats with alternatives made from petrochemicals.

一些品牌已經擺脫了從動物身上獲取成分來源，並用石化產品替代脂肪等成分。

But many consumers don't like this, either, and are looking for so-called "natural" alternatives.

但許多消費者也不喜歡這種方式，他們正在尋找所謂的「天然」替代品。

It means there's more pressure to find plant-based alternatives, and that brings more environmental problems.

這意味著尋找植物性替代品的壓力更大，但同時也會帶來更多的環境問題。

Take rose oil, which is used in perfumes.

以玫瑰油為例，它被用於香水中。

It takes around 200,000 petals to make five milliliters.

製作五毫升的玫瑰油大約需要200,000片花瓣。

So that's not only a significant volume of roses that need to be grown,

所以，不僅是需要種植大量的玫瑰，

but think about the land usage and the water usage that comes along with it, which has become increasingly problematic with the changing climate.

而且還要考慮到土地的使用和其中的使用水，隨著氣候的變化，這已經導致越來越多的問題。

That's not the only problem in harvesting plants.

這並不是收割植物的唯一問題。

Trees cut down for their perfumed wood are facing extinction.

為獲得用於香水的木材，樹木被砍伐且正面臨滅絕。

Wildflowers are at risk.

野花處於危險之中。

And most modern cosmetics contain palm oil, which is a major driver of deforestation.

現代大多數化妝品都含有棕櫚油，而棕櫚油是砍伐森林的主要原因。

I think people think about plants as a very nature-friendly way of making ingredients, but actually, that's turning out not to be the case.

我想人們認為植物成分是一種非常環境友善的製造方式，但事實並非如此。

So, could gene editing technology help to reduce the cosmetic industry's dependence on plants as well as animals?

所以，基因編輯技術能否幫助減少化妝品行業對動植物的依賴？

Yes, say some scientists who argue that synthesizing ingredients currently made from plant ingredients will make the industry more sustainable and environmentally responsible.

是的，根據一些科學家的說法，他們認為現今取自植物的合成成分將會使該行業對於環境的永續發展以及保護責任更有幫助。

What we see is the cosmetic industry is growing pretty substantially and that means that we need to have environmentally-friendly sources for these molecules,

我們可以看到，化妝品行業正在大幅增長，這意味著我們需要有環境友好的分子來源，

and biosynthesis is an environmentally-friendly way to derive many of these molecules.

而生物合成以環境友好的方式來獲得這些分子。

Instead of growing, for example, roses on a significant plot of land that requires a lot of energy to maintain and a lot of water,

例如，在廣大的土地上種植玫瑰需要大量的能源和水來維持，

What you can do is, you can design a microbe that can effectively produce that same type of material

你可以做的是藉由一種微生物來同樣有效地生產同類型的材料，

without the carbon footprint, without needing that much land, without needing that much water, and without needing that much energy.

而不需要碳足跡，不需要那麼多土地，不需要那麼多水，不需要那麼多能源。

But are these claims to reduce dependence on plants and animals something of a good marketing story for the cosmetics industry which causes more environmental damage in other ways?

但是，對於以其他方式造成更多環境破壞的化妝品行業來說，這些聲稱減少對植物和動物的依賴的說法，真的是一個好的故事營銷嗎？

120 billion units of single-use packaging are created by the cosmetics industry every year.

化妝品行業每年產生1200億個一次性的使用包裝。

Almost 9 in 10 products from major brands contain microplastics.

幾乎每10個大品牌的產品中就有9個含有塑膠微粒。

Here again, some biotech companies say technology could be the answer⏤by engineering microbes which can break down plastics.

再一次，根據一些生物技術公司所言，技術可以為此帶來解藥──通過設計一種可以分解塑膠的微生物。

Every waste product that is out there, there is a microbe that uses that as a food source.

每一種廢品都有一種微生物將其作為食物來源。

So, it is really interesting to think about designing microbes or finding microbes that can help us break down plastics and also not be causing harmful effects in our environment.

因此，設計出一種微生物，或找到能夠幫助我們分解塑膠並且不會對我們的環境造成有害影響的微生物，這真的很有意思。

Of the total ingredients used in the global cosmetics market, it's estimated around 10% are produced from gene-edited microbes.

在全球化妝品市場使用的總成分中，具估計，約有10%是由基因編輯的微生物生產的。

But could that figure increase?

但是，這個數字會不會增加呢？

Here in the lab of biotech company Ginkgo, Jason Kelly's team have signed multi-million-dollar deals with some of the world's leading fragrance companies to develop perfumes from gene-edited microbes.

在一間叫Ginko的生物科技公司的實驗室裡，Jason kelly的團隊已經與一些世界領銜的香水公司簽訂了數百萬美元的協議，用基因編輯的微生物來開發香水。

What you're looking at here is each one of those little jars is a small brewery, it's a little... it's what we call a fermenter.

你在這裡看到這些小罐子，每一個都是一個小釀酒廠，它非常小，它就是我們所說的發酵罐。

But think of it like a very small brewery.

但可以把它想像成一個非常小的釀酒廠。

But despite interest from big brands, the multi-billion-dollar question is: Will perfumes made using gene editing become the norm in beauty aisles?

但是，儘管大品牌有興趣，價值數十億美元的問題是，使用基因編輯技術製造的香水是否會在美容貨架上普及？

That may depend on whether scientists can design microbes to produce large enough quantities of the required ingredient.

這可能取決於科學家們是否能夠設計出一種能夠生產出足夠多的所需成分的微生物。

Once you've got a strain and you've put the DNA in to have it make one of these products, you're not actually done, right?

當你一旦你得到了一種菌株，並且將它放入DNA 中來製造其中一種產品，你知道這實際上還沒有完成，對嗎？

What you need to do is then figure out the best way to grow it.

你需要做的是在之後找出最好的方法來發展它。

Scientists must tinker with the microbe's metabolism and its newly-inserted DNA to see how efficiently it's producing the desired molecules.

科學家們必須對微生物的新陳代謝和新插入的DNA進行修補，以瞭解它產生所需分子的效率如何。

It's a process that can take months or even years, but it's become quicker and more commercially viable as gene editing technology has become more affordable.

這是一個可能需要數月甚至數年的過程，但或許會隨著基因編輯技術變得更容易負擔來加速這個過程並變得更具商機。

So, I know it's loud in here, but that's the sound of DNA being read on a machine like one of these DNA sequencers.

我知道這裡很吵，但那是在這些像 DNA 測序儀的機器讀取 DNA 的聲音。

We can actually look at the genomes of thousands of bacterial cells in one single run.

我們實際上可以在一次運行中查看成千上萬的細菌細胞的基因組。

It's really incredible, like, if you look at how this technology has improved over the last 10 years, it's almost a million-fold cost-reduction in reading DNA.

這真的很不可思議，如果你看看這項技術在過去10年裡是如何進步的，它在讀取DNA方面的成本幾乎降低了一百萬倍。

Currently, it can take between 6 months to 3 years to find the right combination of conditions for the microbes to flourish.

目前，它可能需要6個月到3年的時間才能找到合適的組合條件讓微生物能蓬勃發展。

But the low cost of sequencing enables companies like Jason's to keep trying new versions.

但測序的低成本讓像Jason這樣的公司能夠不斷嘗試新的版本。

And this low cost means savings could be passed on to the brands.

而這種低成本意味著節省的費用可以轉嫁給品牌。

If we're replacing an ingredient, like, you currently extract a molecule from a plant, for example, for fragrance or something like that,

如果我們要取代一種成分，就像如果你從植物中萃取一種用於香水或其他相似產品的分子，

you know, often, a customer will be trying to see something like a 50% lower cost of goods by production via fermentation compared to the old process.

與舊的技術相比，客戶會試圖通過發酵生產來降低 50% 的商品成本。

And there is another reason why gene-edited products may become more prevalent and commercially viable in the cosmetics world.

還有另一個基因編輯的產品可能會在化妝品領域變得更加普遍和更有商機的原因。

Light-touch regulation.

不寬嚴的規範。

Unlike industries such as pharmaceuticals, regulations in America for cosmetics allow scientists comparative freedom to experiment with gene-edited ingredients.

與製藥等行業不同的是，在化妝品的規範上，美國允許科學家相對自由地試驗基因編輯的成分。

I think that the cosmetics sit in kind of a sweet spot where the regulatory risk is lower than for pharmaceuticals,

我認為化妝品業目前處於一種最佳狀態，它的監管風險低於藥品，

and the value of the molecule is higher than it is, say, for commodity chemicals like plastics or biofuels.

並且分子價值高於塑料或生物燃料等化學商品的價值。

And in the EU, which has some of the strictest laws around genetically-modified products, cosmetics companies can take advantage of a distinction regulators see as crucial.

歐盟對於基因改造產品方面的法律最為嚴格，但化妝品公司可以利用這些監管機構所著重的區分標準。

The organism that is designed, that is modified is used to make the ingredient, but the ingredient itself is not what is referred to as genetically modified.

也就是說，儘管為了某一成分去設計及改造某一基因體，但所製造出的成份本身卻不會被視為是基因改造的。

So, an ingredient that is produced through a genetically-modified organism might be nature-identical and effectively impossible to differentiate.

因此，通過轉基因生物所生產出的成分可能在性質上是相同的，但實際上是無法區分的。

It might even be safer than traditional plant-based or animal-based sourcing methods.

它甚至可能比傳統上以植物或動物來獲取成分的方法更安全。

It looks like synthetic biology could be good news for the cosmetics industry,

合成生物學看起來可能是對整個化妝品業的好消息，

but cosmetics might also be a lifesaver for the synthetic biology industry.

但化妝品也可能是合成生物學業的救星。

In 2021, companies in this sector saw their value crash as they struggled to find a market for their technologies in areas such as biofuels.

2021年，在合成生物學公司試圖為其技術在生物燃料領域尋找市場時，他們看到其本身行業價值的崩盤。

And what also excites some scientists in this field is the possibility of sourcing previously inaccessible molecules and creating brand-new products.

但同樣讓這個領域的科學家為之振奮的是，曾經無法獲得的分子現在有創造出全新產品的可能性。

I think the future is very bright for this technology.

我認為這個領域的技術前景非常光明。

I think that we're gonna be able to produce nearly every molecule in cosmetics using this technology, and not only that, we're gonna have molecules that you can't currently get in cosmetics.

我認為藉由這項技術，我們幾乎能夠生產化妝品中的所有分子，而不僅如此，我們將擁有目前在化妝品中無法獲取的分子。

What will be possible once we start tapping into other natural molecules that we haven't even been able to play with yet?

一旦我們開始挖掘其他甚至還沒來得及研究過的天然分子，還會有怎樣的可能性呢？

I'm Alok Jha, science correspondent at "The Economist".

我是「經濟學人」的科學記者Alok Jha。

To read more on this topic, please click on the link.

想了解更多有關這一主題的資訊，請點擊鏈接。

Thanks for watching, and please don't forget to subscribe.

謝謝你的觀看，並請不要忘記訂閱。