Yes. When going after non-trivial chemicals the economics work out, and is cheaper when scaled up. The process essentially repurposes beer fermentation. The usu

Yes. When going after non-trivial chemicals the economics work out, and is cheaper when scaled up. The process essentially repurposes beer fermentation. The usual benefits of biological production: carbon-negative, and not using any toxic catalysts or producing waste products hold as well. Consider the molecule, paracetamol/acetaminophen/Tylenol [1], that we created a microbe for: The US alone produces 35000+ tonnes of it, all currently coming from petro-routes. It would be nicer to get it the same way we get beer, if we could. There might be additional market forces that make a microbial fermentation attractive: e.g., in the case of the anti-malarial drug artemisinin, fluctuation in supply of the plant Artemisia annua, the price of the drug varied between $120-$1200/kg, and Amyris and Sanofi moved it to yeast based production for creating a steady supply [2]. That route was critical for the supply of the drug to African countries. For many of the requests we get, chemical synthesis is not economically feasible to take the chemical to market, and bioproduction might be the only route. The fact that we suggest routes that work well for the planet is a good side-effect. :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Synthesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisinin#Synthesis_in_engineered_organisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisinin#Synthesis_in_engine...