Advertisement

“First Species Whose Parent Is a Computer”—Synthetic Biology as Technoscience, Colonizing Futures, and the Problem of the Digital

  • Martin Müller
Chapter
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 45)

Abstract

This chapter engages with (1) synthetic biology’s technoscientific specifica, (2) the role of promises, and (3) the problematic notion of ‘digital biology’. Synthetic biology dismisses the idea of an already given nature: ‘life itself’ is conceptualized as a field of potentialities, with adaptable materials and flexible structures that can be used for re-engineering to ‘perfect’ nature. Bioengineers claim to create new living organisms from scratch, using genetically standardized parts and computer-based design: ‘Living machines’ which do not exist in nature are supposed to serve human purposes. Beyond its actual (and limited) state of research, some voices of synthetic biology offer bold claims of socio-technical scenarios, imagined objects, and future biotechnical experiments, which take place in society rather than behind laboratory doors. With their visions, synthetic biologists are becoming engineers of future societies. Synthetic biology develops a ‘biotechnologization of collective futures’ and it is part of a technoscientific ‘promise-economy’ that aims to colonize the future. Crucial for synthetic biology’s promise of ‘digital biology’ are script-centered, bio-cybernetic, and even transhumanist figures of thought that fuel new visions of life and nature as a field of potentials and even limitless treasures that can be programmed and produced by computational procedures: ‘writing’ the code of life.

Keywords

Synthetic biology Science and technoscience Design turn Culture of promise Life as code Digital biology Media theory 

References

  1. Adam B, Groves C (2007) Future matters. Brill, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Between the possible and the actual: philosophical perspectives on the design of synthetic organisms. Futures 48:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bensaude Vincent B, Loeve S, Nordmann A, Schwarz A (2011) Matters of interest: the objects of research in science and technoscience. J Gen Phil Sci 42:365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bethge P, Grolle J (2013) Interview with George Church: Can Neanderthals be brought back from the dead? Spiegel-Online. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html. Accessed 14 June 2015
  5. Bublitz H, Bührmann AD, Hanke C, Seier A (eds) (1999) Das Wuchern der Diskurse. Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults, Campus, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson R (2012) Biology is technology. The promise, peril, and new business of engineering life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  7. Catts O, Zurr I (2014) Countering the engineering mindset: the conflict of art and synthetic biology. In: Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P, Elfick A, Endy D (eds) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark L (2013) Glowing trees could pave the way for solving world problems with biology. Wired UK. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/9/glowing-plants-kickstarter. Accessed 14 June 2015
  9. Church GM, Regis E (2012) Regenesis. How synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins J (2012) Synthetic biology: bits and pieces come to life. Nature 7387:8–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbyn Z (2013) Craig Venter: ‘this isn’t a fantasy look at the future. We are doing the future’. In: The guardian, 12 Oct, p 41Google Scholar
  12. Fox Keller E (2002) Making sense of life. Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu P, Panke S (eds) (2009) Systems biology and synthetic biology. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  14. Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P, Elfick A, Endy D (eds) (2014) Synthetic Aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  15. Haraway DJ (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™. Feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Highfield R (2013) J Craig Venter sequenced the human genome. Now he wants to convert DNA into a digital signal. Interview, Wired UK. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/11/features/j-craig-venter-interview. Accessed 14 June 2015
  17. Joly P-B (2010) On the economics of techno-scientific promises. In: Akrich M, Barthe Y, Muniesa F, Mustar P (eds) Débordements. Mélanges offerts à Michel Callon. Presse des Mines, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones R (2006) Economy of promises. Nature Nanotech 3:65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kastenhofer K, Schwarz A (2011) Editorial: probing technoscience. Poiesis Prax 8(2–3):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kay LE (2000) Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight TF (2005) Engineering novel life. Mol Syst Biol 1:E1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knorr Cetina K (2005) The rise of a culture of life. EMBO Rep 6:76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwok R (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463:288–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour B (2008) What is the style of matters of concern? Two lectures in empirical philosophy. Assen, Van GorcumGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour B (2009) A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design. In: Hackne F, Glynne J, Minto V (eds) Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society.Falmouth, 3–6 Sept 2009, e-books, Universal Publishers, pp 2–10Google Scholar
  26. Lucht P, Erlemann M, Ruiz B (eds) (2010) Technologisierung gesellschaftlicher Zukünfte. Nanotechnlogien in wissenschaftlicher, politischer und öffentlicher Praxis. Centaurus, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordmann A (2006) Collapse of distance: epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Dan Yearb Philos 41:7–34Google Scholar
  28. Nordman A, Radder H, Schiemann G (eds) (2011) Science transformed: debating claims of an epochal break. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  29. Reardon S (2011) Visions of synthetic biology. Science 333:1242–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose H, Rose SPR (2012) Genes, cells, and brains. The Promethean promises of the new biology. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Schäffner W (2010) The design turn. Eine wissenschaftliche Revolution im Geiste der Gestaltung. In: Claudia Mareis (eds) Entwerfen - Wissen - Produzieren. Designforschung im Anwendungskontext. Transcript, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds) (2009) Synthetic biology. The technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Thacker E (2004) Biomedia. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  34. Thacker E (2006) The global genome. Biotechnology, politics, and culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  35. Thacker E (2009) “De anima”: on life and the living. In: Bock von Wülfingen, Bettina and Ute Frietsch (eds) Epistemologie und Differenz. Zur Reproduktion des Wissens in den Wissenschaften. Transcript, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  36. Venter JC (2010) Synthetic life. Transcript Press conference. https://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life/transcript. Accessed 14 June 2015
  37. Venter JC (2013) Life at the speed of light from the double helix to the dawn of digital life. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber J (2003) Umkämpfte Bedeutungen. Naturkonzepte im Zeitalter der Technoscience, Campus, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber J (2010) Making worlds: epistemological, ontological and political dimensions of technoscience. Poiesis Prax 7(1–2):17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber J (2011a) Technoscience as popular culture. On pleasure, consumer technologies and the economy of attention. In: Nordman A, Radder H, Schiemann G (eds) Science transformed: debating claims of an epochal break. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  41. Weber J (2011b) Die kontrollierte Simulation der Unkontrollierbarkeit—Kontroll- und Wissensformen in der Technowissenschaftskultur. In: Bublitz H, Kaldrack I, Röhle T, Winkler H (eds) Unsichtbare Hände. Automatismen in Medien-, Technik- und Diskursgeschichte. Fink, PaderbornGoogle Scholar
  42. Wohlsen M (2011) Biopunk: DIY scientists hack the software of life. Pinguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Zakeriemail B, Carremail PA (2015) The limits of synthetic biology. Trend Biotechnol 33(2):57–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Image Knowledge Gestaltung: An Interdisciplinary Laboratory, Cluster of ExcellenceHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations