Biosecurity and Open-Source Biology: The Promise and Peril of Distributed Synthetic Biological Technologies

Abstract

In this article, we raise ethical concerns about the potential misuse of open-source biology (OSB): biological research and development that progresses through an organisational model of radical openness, deskilling, and innovation. We compare this organisational structure to that of the open-source software model, and detail salient ethical implications of this model. We demonstrate that OSB, in virtue of its commitment to openness, may be resistant to governance attempts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is, admittedly, a simplification; there are a variety of ways in which different open-source projects might be more or less open. However, such a categorization is beyond the scope of our work. See, e.g., de Joode (2005), especially chapters one and two.

  2. 2.

    Do-it-yourself.

  3. 3.

    We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the initial ambiguity in our use of the term.

  4. 4.

    A number of views about the economics and social dynamics of this phenomena have been advanced that provide competing accounts of why this is, but for the sake of brevity we will provide a sketch only. Good introductions to the structure of open-source community include de Joode (2005), Weber (2004) and Hope (2005).

  5. 5.

    We leave this name as its hyperlink, to easily distinguish DIYBio.org from “DIY bio.”

  6. 6.

    See, e.g., Carlson (2010). Carlson’s claims aren’t all that different from our description of emerging movements in synthetic biology; he argues that garage biology emerged from a longer intellectual heritage of “garage innovation.” He doubts the strength of the parallel between what he now calls “open biology” and open-source software, but his conclusions are primarily based on the types of legal license that can be justified in biology compared to software engineering. This, however, is not important for our analysis here (Hope 2005, p. 318).

  7. 7.

    That is not to say that OSB or the drive for openness is the only trend in the life sciences. There are other cultures of research that seek to utilize intellectual property to divide up the intellectual terrain, and view this as the right or best method for approaching the field. Broadly, the life sciences are experiencing a tension between the competing views of “complete openness” versus “patent everything.” Many thanks to Alison Wylie for bringing this point up in conversation.

  8. 8.

    This is a contested term, and while it has been used as such before we recognise its stipulative quality. See e.g., Carlson (2012).

References

  1. Anderson, R., Barton, C., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., van Eeten, M.J.G., Levi, et al. (2012). Measuring the costs of cybercrime. 11th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security. Berlin.

  2. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

  3. CAMBIA. (2006). The CAMBIA BiOS Initiative: Biological Innovation for Open Society. http://www.bios.net/daisy/bios/2029/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/BiOS%20Initiative%20Phase%202006-2008.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2012.

  4. Carlson, R. (2003). The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 1(3), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlson, R. (2010). Biology is technology: The promise, peril, and new business of engineering life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carlson, R. (2012). Causes and consequences of bioeconomic proliferation: Implications for U.S. Physical and Economic Security. 09-45. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate. United States Department of Homeland Security.

  7. Carlson, R., & Brent, R. (2000). DARPA Open Source Biology Letter. http://synthesis.cc/DARPA_OSB_Letter.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2012.

  8. Cello, J., Paul, A. V., & Wimmer, E. (2002). Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), 1016–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2009). Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  10. David, P. A. (2004). Understanding the emergence of ‘Open Science’ institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. de Joode R. (2005). Understanding open source communities: an organizational perspective. Technische Universiteit Delft, PhD. Thesis.

  12. DIYBio.org (2008). Home. http://diybio.org. Accessed February 23, 2014.

  13. ETC Group. (2007). Extreme genetic engineering: An introduction to synthetic biology. Ottawa, ON: ETC Group.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Evans, N. G. (2013). Great expectations—Ethics, bird flu, and the value of progress. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(4), 209–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fedson, D. S, & Peter, D. (2007). Commentary: From scarcity to abundance: Pandemic vaccines and other agents for ‘have not’ countries. Journal of Public Health Policy, 28(3), 322–340. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200147.

  16. Gibson, D. G., Glass, J. I., Lartigue, C., Noskov, V. N., Chuang, R. Y., Algire, M. A., et al. (2010). Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science, 329(5987), 52–56. doi:10.1126/science.1190719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodman, M. (2012). A vision of crimes of in the future. TED: Technology, Entertainment, Design www.ted.com/talks/marc_goodman_a_vision_of_crimes_in_the_future.html. Accesed February 23, 2014.

  18. Hacking Goes Squishy: special section 30-31 (2009, September 5). Economist, 392, no. 8647.

  19. Higashide, W., Yongchao, L., Yunfeng, Y., & Liao, J. C. (2011). Metabolic engineering of clostridium celluloyticum for isobutanol production from cellulose. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 77(8), 2727–2733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hope, J. (2005). Biobazaar: The open-source revolution and biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Imai, M., Watanabe, T., Hatta, M., Das, S. C., Ozawa, M., Shinya, K., et al. (2012). Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature, 486(7403), 420–428. doi:10.1038/nature10831.

    Google Scholar 

  22. International Genetically-Engineered Machine Competition (iGEM). (2014). Safety Hub. http://2014.igem.org/Safety. Accessed August 5, 2014.

  23. Jefferson, C. (2013). The growth of amateur biology: A dual use governance challenge? Biochemical security 2030 project policy paper 3. Bath: University of Bath.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jefferson, C., Lentzos F, & Marris C. (2014). Synthetic biology and biosecurity: Challenging the ‘Myths’. Frontiers in Public Health 2(115). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00115.

  25. Jorgensen, P. D. (2013). Pharmaceuticals, political money, and public policy: A theoretical and empirical agenda. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 561.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kahn, L. (2012). DIY biology. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/laura-h-kahn/diy-biology. Accessed July 1, 2012.

  27. Kelle, A. (2012). Synthetic biology with standard parts. In J. Tucker (Ed.), Innovation, dual use, and security: Managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies (Vol. 9). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kelle, A. (2013). Synthetic biology as a field of dual-use bioethical concern. In B. Rappert & M. J. Selgelid (Eds.), On the dual uses of science and ethics (pp. 45–63). Canberra: ANU E Press. http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ch044.pdf.

  29. Kepler, T. B., Marti-Renom, M. A., Maurer, S. M., Rai, A. K., Taylor, G., & Todd, M. H. (2006). Open source research—The power of Us. Australian Journal of Chemistry, 59, 291–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kindsmüller, K., & Wagner, R. (2011). Synthetic biology: Impact on the design of innovative vaccines. Human Vaccines, 7(6), 658–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Laurie, B. (2005). Open source and security. In C. DiBona, D. Cooper, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open Sources 2.0: The continuing evolution (pp. 57–71). Sebastopol, CA: O’Rielly.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ledford, H. (2010). Garage biotech: Life hackers. Nature, 467, 650–652.

  33. Lentzos, P. (2008). Countering misuse of life sciences through regulatory multiplicity. Science and Public Policy, 35(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lipsitch, M., & Galvani, A. P. (2014). Ethical alternatives to experiments with novel potential pandemic pathogens. PLoS Medicine, 11(5), e1001646. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001646.

  35. McCusker, R. (2006). Transnational organised cyber crime: Distinguishing threat from reality. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4–5), 257–273.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meselson, M. (2000). Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology. The CBW Conventions Bulletin. http://sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/DraftConventionsupportingdocs/HSPpapers/cbwcb48.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2014.

  37. Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2008). Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nolan-Stevaux, K. M. (2007). Open Source Biology: a Means to Address the Access & Research Gaps. Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ 23, 271.

  39. Palese, P. (2012). Don’t censor life-saving science. Nature, 481(7380), 115.

  40. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

  41. Randal, K. (2005). The artists in hazmat suits. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/arts/design/03kenn.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&. Accessed June 1, 2013.

  42. Samuel, G., Selgelid, M. J., & Kerridge, I. (2009). Managing the unimaginable: Regulatory responses to the challenges posed by synthetic biology and synthetic genomics. EMBO Reports, 10, 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schmidt, Charles W. (2010). Synthetic biology: Environmental health implications of a new field. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(3), A119–A123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schneier, B. (2012). Securing medical research: A cybersecurity point of view. Science, 336(6088), 1527–1529. doi:10.1126/science.1224321.

  45. Selgelid, M. J., & Weir, L. (2010). Reflections on the synthetic production of poliovirus. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66(3), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Taylor, G. (2006). The Synaptic Leap. http://www.thesynapticleap.org. Accessed August 08, 2012.

  47. Tumpey, T. M., et al. (2005). Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus. Science, 310, 77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. van den Hoven, J. (1997). Computer ethics and moral methodology. Metaphilosophy, 28(3), 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Vayena, E., & Tasioulas, J. (2013). Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001402. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Watanabe, T., Zhong, G., Russell, C. A., Nakajima, N., Hatta, M., Hanson, A., et al. (2014). Circulating avian influenza viruses closely related to the 1918 virus have pandemic potential. Cell Host & Microbe, 15, 692–705. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2014.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Way, J. C., Collins, J. J., Keasling, J. D., & Silver, P. A. (2014). Integrating biological redesign: Where synthetic biology came from and where it needs to go. Cell, 157, 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Westwick, P. J. (2000). Secret science: A classified community in the national laboratories. Minerva, 38(4), 363–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wheelis, M., & Sugishima, M. (2006). Terrorist use of biological weapons. In M. Wheelis & L. Rózsa (Eds.), Deadly cultures: Biological weapons since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Williams, P. (2001). Organized crime and cybercrime: Synergies, trends, and responses. Global Issues, 6(2), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas G. Evans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evans, N.G., Selgelid, M.J. Biosecurity and Open-Source Biology: The Promise and Peril of Distributed Synthetic Biological Technologies. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 1065–1083 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9591-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dual-use
  • Biotechnology
  • Open source
  • Bioterrorism
  • Biocrime
  • Openness
  • Deskilling