Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Henk ten Have

Synthetic Biology

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_414-1
How to cite

Abstract

Synthetic biology is a techno-scientific discipline with the declared goal of rationally engineering biological systems. Despite its considerable promise – regarding applications in medicine, energy, environmental remediation, and agriculture – synthetic biology raises numerous ethical issues pertaining to intellectual property, the creation of novel life forms, biosafety, and biosecurity.

Keywords

Synthetic biology Genomics Intellectual property Genetically modified organisms Justice Biosafety Biosecurity Dual use 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R. O., & Singer, M. F. (1975). Summary statement of the asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(6), 1981–1984. doi:10.2307/64627?ref=no-x-route:608f8cefda0161234b77e36dd8a58c58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlson, R. H. (2010a). Biology is technology: The promise, peril, and new business of engineering life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, S. (2013). The precautionary principle and the dual-use dilemma. In M. J. Selgelid & B. Rappert (Eds.), On the dual uses of science and ethics (pp. 223–233). Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  4. Crosby, A.W. (1989). America’s forgotten epidemic: The influenza of 1918. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. DeLoache, W. C., Russ, Z. N., Narcross, L., Gonzales, A. M., Martin, V. J. J., & Dueber, J. E. (2015). An enzyme-coupled biosensor enables (S)-reticuline production in yeast from glucose. Nature Chemical Biology. doi:10.1038/nchembio.1816.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, N. G., & Selgelid, M. J. (2014). Biosecurity and open-source biology: The promise and peril of distributed synthetic biological technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 41(4), 1065–1083.Google Scholar
  7. Farmer, P. (2005). Pathologies of power. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, M. S., Endy, D., Epstein, G. L., & Friedman, R. M. (2007a). Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Industrial Biotechnology, 3(4), 333–365. Retrieved from http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/syngen-options/publications/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hason, M. J. (2001). Religious voices in biotechnology. In M. J. Hason (Ed.), Claiming power over life (pp. 72–111). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hettinger, N. (1994). Patenting life: Biotechnology, intellectual property, and environmental ethics. The Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 22, 267.Google Scholar
  11. Morgan, S., Grootendorst, P., Lexchin, J., Cunningham, C., & Greyson, D. (2011). The cost of drug development: A systematic review. Health Policy, 100(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oye, K. A., Lawson, J. C. H., & Bubela, T. (2015). Drugs: Regulate “home-brew” opiates. Nature, 521(7552), 281–283. doi:10.1038/521281a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. 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(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Selgelid, M. J., & Weir, L. (2010). Reflections on the synthetic production of poliovirus. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66(3), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shatkai, A., & Kohn, A. (1974). Control of gene expression (p. 434). Presented at the Oholo Biological Conference on Strategies for the Control of Gene Expression, Zikhron Yaaqov, Israel.Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Carlson, R. H. (2010b). Biology is technology: The promise, peril, and new business of engineering life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Garfinkel, M. S., Endy, D., Epstein, G. L., & Friedman, R. M. (2007b). Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Industrial Biotechnology, 3(4), 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Tucker, J. B., & Zilinskas, R. A. (2006). The promise and perils of synthetic biology. New Atlantis, 12(1), 25–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Human Bioethics; School of Philosophical, Historical and International StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA