Mol Syst Biol. 3: 117 Ten years ago, genetic engineering was limited to cutting and pasting DNA from existing organisms. Today's biologists can write down gene sequences that have never existed anywhere, place an order over the Internet, and receive the desired DNA by return mail. The new science of synthetic biology dreams of a day when blueprints for new life forms can be designed as easily as computer chips. Practitioners argue that the key is to create libraries of standard gene sequences (‘parts’) that reliably perform simple functions like encoding an enzyme or building a protein that detects light. This strategy is potentially powerful: the electronics industry already uses similar libraries to create ultra‐complex objects like computer chips and software (Endy, 2005). The technological benefits of introducing electronic methods into biology seem clear. The economic consequences are more ambiguous. Many electronics and software industries feature a dangerous ‘winner‐take‐all’ or ‘tipping’ dynamic, in which an initial frontrunner becomes steadily more entrenched over time. Microsoft's rise to power is an obvious example. Significantly, tipping dynamics do not always lead to monopoly. In fact, many outcomes are possible: The eventual winner can be open (Apache) or proprietary (Windows), technically superior (Web) or suboptimal (VHS). Historically, these outcomes have emerged more or less at random from rough‐and‐tumble contests in the market. Synthetic biologists can and should do better. Which of the many possible outcomes is most likely to deliver a world of plentiful, high quality, and affordable parts? Now is surely the time to ask. Academic scientists still control the lion's share of synthetic biology projects, resources, and expertise. Potentially, this gives them important leverage over how industry evolves. But that will change. One company (Amyris Technologies, see below) is already using synthetic biology to make a parts‐based organism. Other companies …