Advertisement

NanoEthics

pp 1–21 | Cite as

The Diversity of Engineering in Synthetic Biology

  • Massimiliano SimonsEmail author
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A recurrent theme in the characterization of synthetic biology is the role of engineering. This theme is widespread in the accounts of scholars studying this field and the biologists working in it, in those of the biologists themselves, as well as in policy documents. The aim of this article is to open this black-box of engineering that is supposed to influence and change contemporary life sciences. Too often, both synthetic biologists and their critics assume a very narrow understanding of what engineering is about, resulting in an unfruitful debate about whether synthetic biology possesses genuine engineering methodologies or not. By looking in more detail to the diversity of engineering conceptions in debates concerning synthetic biology, a richer perspective can be developed. In this article, I will examine five influential ways in which engineering is understood in these debates, namely engineering as applied science, as rational methodology, context-sensitive practice, cunning activity or design. The claim is first of all thus to argue that engineering must not be seen as something stable or characterized by a fixed essence. It rather has multiple meanings and interpretations. Secondly, the claim is that most of the debates on synthetic biology cannot be indifferent towards the question which conception of engineering is at play, since the specific questions and concerns that pop up depend to a great extent on the precise conception of engineering one has in account. Many of the existing debates around synthetic biology can thus be reinterpreted and readdressed once one is aware of which conception of engineering is at play.

Keywords

Synthetic biology History of engineering History of design Rational design Directed evolution George Church 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the “4èmes Journées sur l’Épistémologie Historique” in Paris (May, 2018) and at the doctoral seminar of the Centre for Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Culture in Leuven (November, 2017). I thank the audiences of both seminars and the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions and critiques.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roosth S (2017) Synthetic: how life got made. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giese B, Koenigstein S, Wigger H, Schmidt J, Gleich A (2013) Rational engineering principles in synthetic biology: a framework for quantitative analysis and an initial assessment. Biol Theory 8(4):324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438(7067):449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endy D (2008) Synthetic biology: can we make biology easy to engineer? Ind Biotechnol 4(4):340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andrianantoandro E, Basu S, Karig D, Weiss R (2006) Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Mol Syst Biol 2(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heinemann M, Panke S (2006) Synthetic biology—putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 22(22):2790–2799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Church G, Regis E (2012) Regenesis. How synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Képès F (2011) La biologie de synthèse: plus forte que la nature? Le Pommier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Lorenzo V, Danchin A (2008) Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep 9(9):822–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bensaude-Vincent B (2013) Discipline-building in synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2):122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission (2005) Synthetic biology. Applying engineering to biology. Report of a NEST high‐level expert group EU 21796. Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Boudry M, Pigliucci M (2013) The mismeasure of machine: synthetic biology and the trouble with engineering metaphors. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pauwels E (2013) Mind the metaphor. Nature 500(7464):523–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O'Malley M (2009) Making knowledge in synthetic biology: design meets kludge. Biol Theory 4(4):378–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewens T (2013) From bricolage to BioBricks™: synthetic biology and rational design. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frow E, Calvert J (2013) ‘Can simple biological systems be built from standardized interchangeable parts?’ Negotiating biology and engineering in a synthetic biology competition. Eng Stud 5(1):42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schyfter P (2013) Propellers and promoters: emerging engineering knowledge in aeronautics and synthetic biology. Eng Stud 5(1):6–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schyfter P, Calvert J (2015) Intentions, expectations and institutions: engineering the future of synthetic biology in the USA and the UK. Sci Cult 24(4):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vincenti W (1990) What engineers know and how they know it. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van de Poel I (2010) Philosophy and engineering: setting the stage. In: Van de Poel I, Goldberg DE (eds) Philosophy and engineering: an emerging agenda. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bunge M (1966) Technology as applied science. Technol Cult 7(3):329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(6):639–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    SCENHR (2014) Opinion on synthetic biology I: definition. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carlson R (2011) Biology is technology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pardee K (2018) Perspective: solidifying the impact of cell-free synthetic biology through lyophilisation. Biochem Eng J 138:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith M, Wilding K, Hunt J, Bennett A, Bundy B (2014) The emerging age of cell-free synthetic biology. FEBS Lett 588:2755–2761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harris D, Jewett M (2012) Cell-free biology: exploiting the interface between synthetic biology and synthetic chemistry. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:672–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hodgman C, Jewett M (2012) Cell-free synthetic biology: thinking outside of the cell. Metab Eng 14:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nirenberg M, Matthaei J (1961) The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon naturally occurring or synthetic polyribonucleotides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 47:1588–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Katzen F, Chang G, Kudlicki W (2005) The past, present and future of cell-free protein synthesis. Trends Biotechnol 23(3):150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carlson E, Gan R, Hodgman C, Jewett M (2012) Cell-free protein synthesis: applications come of age. Biotechnol Adv 30:1185–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Calvert J (2010) Synthetic biology: constructing nature? Sociol Rev 58:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Calvert J (2008) The commodification of emergence: systems biology, synthetic biology and intellectual property. BioSocieties 3(4):383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Radder H (ed) (2010) The commodification of academic research: science and the modern university. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Doudna J, Sternberg S (2017) A crack in creation: gene editing and the unthinkable power to control evolution. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mitcham C (1994) Thinking through technology: the path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Calvert J (2006) What’s special about basic research? Sci Technol Hum Values 31(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schauz D (2014) What is basic research? Insights from historical semantics. Minerva 52(3):273–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gieryn T (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Agapakis C, Silver P (2009) Synthetic biology: exploring and exploiting genetic modularity through the design of novel biological networks. Mol BioSyst 5(7):704–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elfick A, Endy D (2014) Synthetic biology: what it is and why it matters. In: Endy D, Elfick A, Schyfter P, Calvert J, Ginsberg AD (eds) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology's designs on nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bud R (1991) Biotechnology in the twentieth century. Soc Stud Sci 21(3):415–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boldt J (2013) Creating life: synthetic biology and ethics. In: Kaebnick G, Murray TH (eds) Synthetic biology and morality: artificial life and the bounds of nature. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boldt J, Müller O (2008) Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nat Biotechnol 26(4):387–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Campos L (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds) Synthetic biology: The technoscience and its consequences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morange M (2012) Synthetic biology: a challenge to mechanical explanations in biology? Perspect Biol Med 55(4):543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jacob F (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science 196(4295):1161–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Morange M (2009) Synthetic biology: a bridge between functional and evolutionary biology. Biol Theory 4(4):368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bensaude-Vincent B, Benoit-Browaeys D (2011) Fabriquer la vie: Où va la biologie de synthèse? Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Calvert J (2013) Engineering biology and society: reflections on synthetic biology. Sci Technol Soc 18(3):405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nordmann A (2015) Synthetic biology at the limits of science. In: Giese B, Pade C, Wigger H, von Gleich A (eds) Synthetic biology: character and impact. Springer, Cham, pp 31–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Calcott B, Levy A, Siegal M, Soyer O, Wagner A (2015) Engineering and biology: counsel for a continued relationship. Biol Theory 10(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Henderson K (1999) On line and on paper: visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(4):448–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cooley M (1980) Architect or bee? The human/technology relationship. South End Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rogers C (1983) The nature of engineering: a philosophy of technology. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Houkes, W (2008) The nature of technological knowledge. In: Meijers, A (ed) (2008). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 309–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Layton E (1984) Science and engineering design. Ann N Y Acad Sci 424(1):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ryle G (1971) Knowing how and knowing that. In: Collected Papers (Volume 2). Barnes and Nobles, New York, pp 212–225Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ferguson E (1992) Engineering and the mind’s eye. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kuldell N, Bernstein R, Ingram K, Hart K (2015) BioBuilder: synthetic biology in the lab. O'Reilly, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Law J (1987) Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion. In: Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 111–134Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kogge W, Richter M (2013) Synthetic biology and its alternatives. Descartes, Kant and the idea of engineering biological machines. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Auyang S (2004) Engineering: endless frontier. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Picon A (2004) Engineers and engineering history: problems and perspectives. Hist Technol 20(4):421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vérin H (1993) La gloire des ingénieurs : L'intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle. Albin Michel, ParisGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Flusser V (1999) The shape of things: a philosophy of design. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Detienne M, Vernant JP (1978) Cunning intelligence in Greek culture and society. Harvester Press, HassocksGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Horkheimer M, Adorno TW (1972) Dialectic of enlightenment. Herder and Herder, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Keller E (2002) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gibson D et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Pennisi E (2010) Genomics. Synthetic genome brings new life to bacterium. Science 328(5981):958–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bedau M, Church G, Rasmussen S, Caplan A, Benner S, Fussenegger M, Collins J, Deamer D (2010) Life after the synthetic cell. Nature 465(7297):422–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bryksin A, Brown A, Baksh M, Finn M, Barker T (2014) Learning from nature—novel synthetic biology approaches for biomaterial design. Acta Biomater 10(4):1761–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Venter C (2013) Life at the speed of light: from the double helix to the dawn of digital life. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Cambray G, Mutalik V, Arkin A (2011) Toward rational design of bacterial genomes. Curr Opin Microbiol 14:624–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Marrguet P, Balagadde F, Tan C, You L (2007) Biology by design: reduction and synthesis of cellular components and behavior. J R Soc Interface 4:607–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Delgado A, Porcar M (2013) Designing de novo: interdisciplinary debates in synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 7(1-2):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Drubin D, Way J, Silver P (2007) Designing biological systems. Genes Dev 21:242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Deplazes A (2009) Piercing together a puzzle. EMBO Rep 10(5):428–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A, Torgersen H, Kelle A, Deplazes A, Biller-Andorno N (2009) A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rabinow P (2009) Prosperity, amelioration, flourishing: from a logic of practical judgment to reconstruction. Law and Literature 21(3):301–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Synthetic Biology Leadership Council (2016) Biodesign for the Bioeconomy. UK Synthetic Biology Strategic Plan 2016 https://static1squarespacecom/static/54a6bdb7e4b08424e69c93a1/t/589619873e00be743c62a76e/1486231951837/BioDesign+for+the+Bioeconomy+2016+-+DIGITALpdf. Accessed 1 October 2018
  88. 88.
    Galle P, Kroes P (2014) Science and design: identical twins? Des Stud 35(3):201–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ammon S (2017) Why designing is not experimenting: design methods, epistemic praxis and strategies of knowledge acquisition in architecture. Philosophy & Technology 30(4):495–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Seely B (1993) Research, engineering, and science in American engineering colleges: 1900-1960. Technol Cult 34(2):344–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Seely B (1999) The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900–1965. J Eng Educ 88(3):285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sheppard SD, Macatangay K, Colby A, Sullivan WM, Shulman LS (2009) Educating engineers: designing for the future of the field. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lewin D (1979) On the place of design in engineering. Des Stud 1(2):113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Creed M (1990) On an educational philosophy towards civil engineering design. In: McCabe V (ed) Design in engineering education. SEFI, Brussels, pp 75–78Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Cross N (2001) Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des Issues 17(3):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Simon H (1984) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner. Temple-Smith, LondonGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Petroski H (1995) Design paradigms: case histories of error and judgment in engineering. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Akera A, Seely B (2015) A historical survey of the structural changes in the American system of engineering education. In: Christensen S, Didier C, Jamison A, Meganck M, Mitcham C, Newberry B (eds) International perspectives on engineering education. Springer, Cham, pp 7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Williams R (2003) Retooling: a historian confronts technological change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ijäs T (2018) Design under randomness: how variation affects the engineering of biological systems. Biol Theory 13(3):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wang H, Church G (2011) Multiplexed genome engineering and genotyping methods: applications for synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. Methods Enzymol 498:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Raman S, Rogers JK, Taylor ND, Church G (2014) Evolution-guided optimization of biosynthetic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(50):17803–17808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Rogers J, Church G (2016) Multiplexed engineering in biology. Trends Biotechnol 34(3):198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Carr P, Church G (2009) Genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol 27(12):1151–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Wang H, Isaacs FJ, Carr P, Sun Z, Xu G, Forest C, Church G (2009) Programming cells by multiplex genome engineering and accelerated evolution. Nature 460(7257):894–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Fujimura J (2005) Postgenomic futures: translations across the machine-nature border in systems biology. New Genetics and Society 24(2):195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Green S (2017) Introduction to philosophy of systems biology. In: Green S (ed) Philosophy of systems biology: perspectives from scientists and philosophers. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy (HIW)KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations