Abstract
In this editorial, we situate the 17 chapters of the book in the context of ambivalences of synthetic biology: the uses of the label, the significance of the associated metaphors and visions, critical and public engagement, and reasons for unease. Hype and metaphors in synthetic biology may sometimes skew the debate, but they should nevertheless not be ignored: a balanced, realistic view of synthetic biology includes acknowledgment of the variety of research agendas and visions. The goals and agendas underlying engagement and evaluative activities are important aspects, too: in some cases, they are designed to increase acceptance. This can be a source of unease. Another major source of persistent unease is that synthetic biology takes to further extremes the worldview that allows humans to put life under their disposal. Is quoting grand visions for synthetic biology a good way to begin a book about its societal implications? Metaphors such as “living machines” and “digitizing life” have been ubiquitous in synthetic biology, but with ambivalent effects. For synthetic biology, on the one hand, futuristic—even biblical—visions have helped to establish the field and secure funding. On the other hand, the field needs to deliver; and vivid metaphors as well as “newness” make it an obvious subject for critical voices and regulatory initiatives. Beyond this political dimension, hype and metaphors of synthetic biology—including the label itself—have been inspiring for more nuanced evaluative efforts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In policy and social sciences, on the other hand, biosecurity has been a rather prominent topic (Jefferson et al. 2014). Like Steizinger, Jefferson et al. suggest that emphases caused by hype and particular research interests may have contributed to unproductive discussions.
- 2.
www.bio-fiction.com. Accessed 24 June 2015.
- 3.
Translation (KH): Synthetic biology is likely to lead us into extreme areas, and in this sense, art can be a good preparation.
- 4.
See for example the Convention on Biological Diversity online discussion about synthetic biology, Topic 3: “Operational definition of synthetic biology, comprising inclusion and exclusion criteria”, where operational definitions are discussed, bch.cbd.int/synbio/open-ended/pastdiscussions.shtml#topic3, Accessed 19 June 2015. Jim Thomas from the ETC-group (post [#6829]), for example, suggests a very wide definition, whereas Steven Evans from Dow AgroSciences (post [#6877]) writes that “one line in the sand for separating ‘traditional’ molecular biology and synthetic biology is the point at which the resulting organism, irrespective of how they were inspired or how they were actualized, can no longer exchange information or transcribe/translate information with its originating species strain or any other ‘natural’ species.” Thus, in effect, Evans suggests restricting an operational definition of synthetic biology to xenobiology.
- 5.
Synthetic biology has a persistently low level of salience in the public sphere as measured in polls and analyses of media coverage: for overviews and interpretations in this volume, see Ancillotti and Eriksson; Seitz; Steurer.
- 6.
It was Venter’s “artificial cell” for a short period of time. Now it could be genetically edited organisms, which is why the relation of genetically edited organisms with the synthetic biology and GMO labels is a political issue.
- 7.
According to, for example, ter Meulen (2014), this would be adequate because he thinks synthetic biology could reduce many of the perceived risks of genetic modification. In the interest of public acceptance, it would be attractive to repeat the nanotechnology “success story”. In initiatives to this effect, the theoretically outdated one-way science communication model still operates with the expectation that “research in social sciences and humanities […] can […] find better ways to communicate the issues” (ter Meulen 2014, p. 135).
- 8.
This is remeniscent of the classical anthropology dilemma: perspectives from within and from outside of a community cannot be taken at the same time, and experience “from within” will influence later perspectives “from outside”. However, in this case, beyond understanding the (research) culture, its critical evaluation is at stake.
References
Balmer A, Bulpin K, Calvert J et al (2012) Towards a manifesto for experimental collaborations between social and natural scientists. http://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com. Accessed 24 June 2015
Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biol Theory 8:368–375. doi:10.1007/s13752-013-0137-8
Breitling R, Takano E, Gardner TS (2015) Judging synthetic biology risks. Science 347(6218):107
BMBF (2010) Referat Bioökonomie. Nationale ForschungsstrategieBioÖkonomie 2030. Unser Weg zu einer bio-basierten Wirtschaft. BMBF, Bonn, Berlin
Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL et al (1999) Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286(2087):2089–2090
De Lorenzo V (2011) Beware of metaphors: chasses and orthogonality in synthetic biology. Bioeng Bugs 2:3–7. doi:10.4161/bbug.2.1.13388
De Lorenzo V, Danchin A (2008) Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep 9:822–827
Deplazes A (2009) Piecing together a puzzle. EMBO Rep 10(5):428–432
Engelhard M, Bölker M, Budisa N (forthcoming 2016a) Everything new or the same old story? In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analyzed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Berlin
Engelhard M, Bölker M, Budisa N et al (forthcoming 2016b) The new worlds of synthetic biology. In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analyzed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Berlin
Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P et al (2014) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Jefferson C, Lentzos F, Marris C (2014) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: how scared should we be? King’s College London, London
Jones RAL (2014) Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23:27–31. doi:10.1177/0963662513482614
Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Public Underst Sci 21:188–194
Karberg S (2012) Synthetische Biologie in der Kunst: Spiegel für die Forschung. In: genosphären – Zeitschrift des Österreichischen Genomforschungsprogramms GEN-AU 11/12, pp 12–13. http://www.markusschmidt.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Genos11_2012.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2015
Krohs U, Bedau M (2013) Interdisciplinary interconnections in synthetic biology. Biol Theory 8:313–317. doi:10.1007/s13752-013-0141-z
Myskja B, Heggem R (2006) The human and social sciences in interdisciplinary biotechnology research: Trojan horses or useful idiots? In: Kaiser M, Lien M (eds) Ethics Polit. Food Prepr. 6th Congr. Int. Soc. Wageningen Academic Pub, pp 138–142
Myskja B, Nydal R, Myhr A (2014) We have never been ELSI researchers—there is no need for a post-ELSI shift. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:9. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0009-4
Editorial Nature (2014) Tribal gathering. Nature 509(7499):133
Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1:31–46. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6
Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Schmidt M, Meyer A, Cserer A (2013) The bio: fiction film festival: sensing how a debate about synthetic biology might evolve. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662513503772 online before print
Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promising technology. Nanoethics 4:183–189. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0099-2
SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) (2015) Synthetic Biology II—risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects, Opinion. European Union
Ter Meulen V (2014) Time to settle the synthetic controversy. Nature 509:135. doi:10.1038/509135a
Torgersen H (2009) Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol 3:9–17. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9030-y
van der Burg S, Swierstra T (2013) Ethics on the laboratory floor. Palgrave-Macmillan, London
Winter G (2015) The regulation of synthetic biology by EU law: current state and prospects. In: Giese B, Pade C, Wigger H, von Gleich A (eds) Synthetic biology. Character and impact. Springer, Berlin
Zwart H, Landeweerd L, van Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from “ELSA” to “RRI”. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:11. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (2016). Editorial: Ambivalences in Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology. In: Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21087-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21088-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)