Biological Theory

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 368–375 | Cite as

Ethical Perspectives on Synthetic Biology

Thematic Issue Article: Synthesis (σύνθεσις)

Abstract

Synthetic biologists are extremely concerned with responsible research and innovation. This paper critically assesses their culture of responsibility. Their notion of responsibility has been so far focused on the identification of risks, and in their prudential attitude synthetic biologists consider that the major risks can be prevented with technological solutions. Therefore they are globally opposed to public interference or political regulations and tend to self-regulate by bringing a few social scientists or ethicists on board. This article emphasizes that ethics lies beyond prudence and requires a cultural evaluation of the modes of existence of the various microorganisms designed by synthetic biologists, independently of their potential applications.

Keywords

Anthropocentrism Design Prudence Public engagement Risks Self-regulation 

References

  1. Aguiton S (2009) SynthEthics: an ethical and sociological analysis on synthetic biology. Report presented at the 2009 iGEM competition for the award “Human Practices Advance.” http://www.cso.edu/cv_equipe.asp?per_id=164. Accessed July 2013
  2. Aldhous P (2006) Synthetic biologists reject controversial guidelines. New Scientist, May 23. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9211. Accessed July 2013
  3. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  4. Bensaude Vincent B, Nurock V (2010) Ethique des nanotechnologies. In: Hirsch E (ed) Traité de bioéthique, vol 1. érès, Paris, pp 355–369Google Scholar
  5. Bhattachary D, Pascall J, Hunter A (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue. Report of the BBSRC and EPSRC. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/syntheticbiologydialogue/. Accessed 11 Feb 2013
  6. Calvert J (2012) Ownership and sharing in synthetic biology: a ‘diverse ecology’ of the open and the proprietary? BioSocieties 7:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron N, Caplan A (2009) Our synthetic future. Nat Biotechnol 27:1103–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canguilhem G (1971) Machine et organisme. In: La connaissance de la vie (1st edn, 1947). Vrin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson R (2010) Biology is technology: the promise, peril and new business of engineering life. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Deplazes A (2009) Piecing together a puzzle. EMBO Rep 10:428–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deplazes A, Ganguli-Mitra A, Biller-Andorno N (2009) The ethics of synthetic biology: outlining the agenda. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds) Synthetic biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey J (1939) Theory of valuation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupuy J-P, Grinbaum A (2004) Ethics beyond prudence: towards a normative assessment of nanotechnology. In European workshop on social and economic research on nanotechnologies and nanosciences, Brussels, 14–15 April. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/content/Nano.html. Accessed Feb 2013
  14. Erickson B, Singh R, Winters P (2011) Synthetic biology: regulating industry uses of new biotechnologies. Science 333:1254–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=602. Accessed July 2013
  16. ETC Group (2008) Commodifying nature’s last straw? Extreme genetic engineering and the post-petroleum sugar economy. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/703?. Accessed July 2013
  17. ETC Group (2010) Synthia is alive…and breeding: panacea or Pandora’s box? http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5142. Accessed July 2013
  18. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (2011) The ethics of synthetic biology, opinion no. 25. http://ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 11 Feb 2013
  19. European Union (2010) Public survey on synthetic biology. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
  20. Fioraso G (2012) Les enjeux de la biologie de synthèse. Report of L’office parlementaire des choix scientifiques et technologiques, Paris. http://senat.fr/notice-rapport/2011/r11-378-1-notice.html. Accessed July 2013
  21. Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilgartner S (2012) Novel constitutions? New regimes of openness in synthetic biology. BioSocieties 7:188–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaebnick G (2009) Should moral objections to synthetic biology affect public policy. Nat Biotechnol 27:1106–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelle A (2009) Security issues related to synthetic biology. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds) Synthetic biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kogge W, Richter M (2013) Synthetic biology and its alternatives: Descartes, Kant and the idea of engineering biological machines. Philos Perspect Synth Biol 44:181–189Google Scholar
  27. Marlière P (2009) The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world. Syst Synth Biol 3:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maurer S (2009) Synthetic biology marketplace: screening out terrorists. The Hasting center report. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4158&blogid=140. Accessed 13 Feb 2013
  29. Meyer M (2013) Aiming high, but investing little. EMBO Rep 14:2. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pei L, Gaisser S, Schmidt M (2011) Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organisations. Public Underst Sci 1:1–14Google Scholar
  31. Rabinow P (2004) Assembling ethics in an ecology of ignorance. Lecture given at the first conference on synthetic biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 10–12 June, 2004. http://openwetware.org/wiki/Synthetic_Biology:Synthetic_Biology_1.0
  32. Rabinow P, Bennet G (2007) From bio-ethics to human practices. ARC working paper no. 11. http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/publications/2007/08/workingpaperno11.pdf. Accessed February 2013
  33. Rabinow P, Bennet G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodemeyer M (2009) New life, old bottles: regulating the first generation products of synthetic biology. Woodrow Wilson International Institute for Scholars, Washington DC. http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio2/. Accessed February 2013
  35. Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic biology, scope applications and implications. http://www.raeng.org.uk/synbio. Accessed February 2013
  36. Ruder WC, Lu T, Collins JJ (2011) Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science 333:1248–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt M, De Lorenzo V (2012) Synthetic constructs in/for the environment: managing the interplay between natural and engineered biology. FEBS Lett 586:2199–2206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds) (2009) Synthetic biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Simondon G (1989) Du mode d’existence des objets techniques (1st edn, 1958). Aubier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutcliffe H (2011) A report on responsible research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf. Accessed December 2012
  41. Vivagora (2009) Cycle de débats: la biologie synthétique en question. http://www.vivagora.fr/. Accessed February 2013
  42. Williams B (1981) Moral luck. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang JY, Marris C, Rose N (2011) The transnational governance of synthetic biology: scientific uncertainty, cross-borderness and the ‘art of governance.’ BIOS working paper. London School of Economics and Political Science, London. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294977685.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2012

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris 1-Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations