Abstract
Current ethical analysis tends to evaluate synthetic biology at an overview level. Synthetic biology, however, is an umbrella term that covers a variety of areas of research. These areas contain, in turn, a hierarchy of different research fields. This abstraction hierarchy—the term is borrowed from engineering—permits synthetic biologists to specialise to a very high degree. Though synthetic biology per se may create profound ethical challenges, much of the day-to-day research does not. Yet seemingly innocuous research could lead to ethically problematic results. For example, Dolly the sheep resulted from a long series of research steps, none of which presented any ethical problems. The atomic bomb was developed as a result of Einstein’s uncontentions theoretical research that proved the equivalence of matter and energy. Therefore it would seem wise for ethicists to evaluate synbio research across its subfields and through its abstraction hierarchies, comparing and inter-relating the various areas of research. In addition, it would be useful if journals that publish synbio papers require an ethical statement from authors, as standard practice, so as to encourage scientists to constantly engage with ethical issues in their work. Also, this would allow an ethical snapshot of the state of the research at any given time to exist, allowing for accurate evaluation by scientists and ethicists, regulators and policymakers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A definition of what synthetic biology is is given by syntheticbiology.org: “Synthetic Biology is (a) the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems, and (b) the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes” In Syntheticbiology.org (2014). This definition is largely accepted as standard, though there are debates as to the boundaries of the field. The physicist Freeman Dyson has described synbio, partially, in more poetic terms: “If the dominant science in the new ‘Age of Wonder’ is biology, then the dominant art form should be the design of genomes to create new varieties of animals and plants. This art form, using the new biotechnology creatively to enhance the ancient skills of plant and animal breeders, is still struggling to be born. It must struggle against cultural barriers as well as technical difficulties, against the myth of Frankenstein as well as the reality of genetic defects and deformities. If this dream comes true, and the new art form emerges triumphant, then a new generation of artists, writing genomes as fluently as Blake and Byron wrote verses, might create an abundance of new flowers and fruit and trees and birds to enrich the ecology of our planet” In Dyson (2009). In essence, synbio is the attempt to create new life. It currently operates only at the microbial level, but may be extendable to higher life forms if successful.
A partial (though fairly comprehensive) list of conferences, with links to many of their programs, can be found at Syntheticbiology.org Conferences (2014).
A study of Finnish life scientists in related fields reached a similar conclusion. See Häyry et al. (2006).
It is essential to be aware of this, but a full discussion of it goes beyond the scope of this article. For further information see Thompson (2012).
Various steps could be made to cross-fertilise the two fields of bioethics and synthetic biology. For example, masters graduates in synthetic biology could be recruited into doctoral programs in bioethics; PhD graduates and practicing synthetic biologists could be encouraged to work formally in ethics as a significant part of their career.
Of course, another scientist may have made the discovery if Einstein had not. However, Einstein was an unusual genius, even by the standards of top physicists. It would probably have been some years before anyone else made his discoveries, if ever. Thus the serendipitous coming together of events—the new scientific knowledge and the war which led to a desire for weapons of mass destruction—may not have taken place. It is possible that the atomic bomb may never have been developed had he not published his discovery at the time he did.
References
Baldwin, G., et al. 2012. Synthetic biology: A primer. London: Imperial College Press.
Bergman, G. 2009. Goldman school portal takes the worry out of ‘experiments of concern:’ New site aims to warn synthetic biologists when the fruits of their research could include biosecurity risks. UC Berkeley News 2nd April. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2009/04/02_concern.shtml. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Canton, B. undated. Abstraction hierarchies. http://syntheticbiology.org/Abstraction_hierarchy.html. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Cao, H., et al. 2010. Evolving cell models for systems and synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 4: 54–84.
Che, A. 2007. Biological layer abstraction and standards hierarchy v. 8. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228538852_Biological_Layer_Abstraction_and_Standards_Hierarchy_v._8. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Che, A. undated. Abstraction hierarchy network layer model. http://syntheticbiology.org/Abstraction_hierarchy/Network_layer_model.html. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Cho, M.K., et al. 1999. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286(5447): 2087–2090.
Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences. 2003. Sharing publication-related data and materials: Responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309088593. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Douglas, T., and J. Savulescu. 2010. Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 687–693.
Drubin, D.A., et al. 2007. Designing biological systems. Genes and Development 21: 242–254.
Dyson, F. 2009. When science and poetry were friends. The New York Review of Books August 13th. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/aug/13/when-science-poetry-were-friends/. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Elert, G. 2012. Nuclear weapons. In The physics hypertextbook, ed. G. Elert. http://physics.info/weapons. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Endy, D. 2005. Foundations of engineering biology. Nature 438: 449–453.
ETC Group 2007. Extreme genetic engineering: An introduction to synthetic biology. Ottowa, ON: ETC Group. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/extreme-genetic-engineering-introduction-synthetic-biology. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Experiments of Concern Portal FAQs (undated). http://gsppi.berkeley.edu/EoC/uc-berkeley-synthetic-biology-security-program/experiments-of-concern/faq. Accessed July 15th 2013.
Gibson, D.G., et al. 2010. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329: 52–56.
Hasty, J. 2010. Genetic clocks from engineered oscillators. Presentation, International Conference in Synthetic Biology: Bottom-up, Top-down and Cell-free Approaches, Intellectual Property Issues. Genopole, Evry, France, 15–16th December.
Hayden, E. 2009. Experiments of concern to be vetted online. Nature 457: 643.
Häyry, M., et al. 2006. Ethicalization in bioscience—A pilot study in Finland. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15: 282–284.
Imperial College London, Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation. 2014. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Jaramillo, A. 2010. Computational design and characterisation of small gene networks with targeted behaviour in E.coli. Presentation, International Conference in Synthetic Biology: Bottom-up, Top-down and Cell-free Approaches, Intellectual Property Issues. Genopole, Evry, France, 15–16th December.
Jones-Prather, K.L. 2010. Parts, devices and chassis in support of metabolic engineering. Presentation, International Conference in Synthetic Biology: Bottom-up, Top-down and Cell-free Approaches, Intellectual Property Issues. Genopole, Evry, France, 15–16th December.
King’s College London Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation. 2014. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/sshm/research/Research-Groups/BPPP/Projects/Centre-for-Synthetic-Biology-and-Innovation.aspx. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Levskaya, A., et al. 2005. Synthetic biology: Engineering Escherichia coli to see light. Nature 438: 441–442.
Maurer, S.M. 2011. End of the beginning or beginning of the end? Synthetic biology’s stalled security agenda and the prospects for restarting it. Valparaiso University Law Review 45(4): 75–132.
Møller, B.L. 2012. Light driven synthesis of complex molecules. Presentation, Applied Synthetic Biology in Europe Conference, Barcelona, 6–8th February.
Nathan, O., and H. Norden (eds.). 1968. Einstein on Peace. New York, NY: Schoken Books.
Parens, E., et al. 2009. Ethical issues in synthetic biology: An overview of the debates. Garrison: The Hastings Center. http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Patra, S.K., and S. Mishra. 2006. Bibliometric study of bioinformatics literature. Scientometrics 67: 477–489.
Polizzi, K. 2011. Biosensors for bioprocessing. Presentation, Imperial College Systems and Synthetic Biology Annual Autumn Symposium, London, November 16–17th.
Porcar, M. 2010. Beyond directed evolution: Darwinian evolution as a tool for synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 4: 1–6.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2012. New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
Ruth, C., et al. 2010. Variable production windows for porcine trypsinogen employing synthetic inducible promoter variants in Pichiapastoris. Systems and Synthetic Biology 4: 181–191.
Sainani, K. 2008. Mining biomedical literature: Using computers to extract knowledge nuggets. Biomedical Computation Review July, 16–27.
Sanderson, K. 2009. Synthetic biology gets ethical: UK centre hopes to blend science, policy and outreach in burgeoning field. Nature News 12th May. doi:10.1038/news.2009.464.
Savulescu, J. 2012. Master the new loom before life’s tapestry unravels at our hands. The Times Higher Education 9th April. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=419685§ioncode=26. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Syntheticbiology.org. 2014. http://syntheticbiology.org/. Accessed August 14th 2014.
Syntheticbiology.org Conferences. 2014. http://syntheticbiology.org/Conferences.html. Accessed August 14th 2014.
The Biopunk Directory. 2013. http://www.cyberpunked.org/bpkdir/. Accessed August 14th 2014.
The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission [EGE Group]. 2009. Ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Luxembourg: European Communities.
Thompson, P.B. 2012. Synthetic biology needs a synthetic bioethics. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15(1): 1–20.
Ventura, B. 2005. Mandatory submission of microarray data to public repositories: How is it working? Physiological Genomics 20: 153–156.
Wohlson, M. 2011. Biopunk: DIY scientists hack the software of life. New York: Penguin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heavey, P. Integrating ethical analysis “Into the DNA” of synthetic biology. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 121–127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9588-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9588-3