This past May, geneticist Craig Venter and his team pioneered the synthetic biology movement by manufacturing the genome of a bacterium from scratch. They essentially drew up the chromosomal ‘software’ and injected the genetic material into a cell. In describing the feat, the primary investigator Venter sees his study as adding to “the planet’s inventory of life.” Even the profession of genetic engineering itself conjures an image of people as nuts-and-bolts contraptions…and with the redesigning of existing biological systems to perform specific tasks, that conception wouldn’t be too far from the truth.
Venter’s research paves the way for even more progress in the 21st century: more efficient vaccination studies as scientists create microbes that harness energy, bacteria that produce biofuel, or vaccines that can be administered more easily. With all its benefits, it’s no wonder syn bio is likely to be a $4.5 billion industry by 2015. According to Venter, various ethical review boards, including the Sloan Foundation, had approved the science behind his studies before his team proceeded. He is proud that the bioethics discussion has served as a guide, and that his research is accordance with the moral principles of the populace. As Venter himself notes in an interview, “This is an important step both scientifically and philosophically.”
Over the past few months, however, bioethicists have rekindled the syn bio ethics discourse. Although Venter thought a few IRBs gave his brainchild legitimacy, the American public have something different to say. Almost half of the responses to a survey conducted by the Hart Research Associates in September believed the federal government should regulate syn bio. Arguments against syn bio include the weaponization of new scientific research (much like what happened with the atom bomb), bioterrorism, environmental damage, and the difficulty of containing these new organisms. What is most interesting, however, is the philosophical nature of the counterargument 25% of America believes: synthetic biology is morally apprehensible. In short, it’s just plain wrong for scientists like Venter to ‘play God.’
But to take that view is to place a cap on scientific innovation and progress. Unlike Ashley’s treatment, synthetic biology can spearhead a totally new way of addressing energy and medicine. As for Sandel’s “giftedness” arguments which have equal applicability in the syn bio debate, we are not decreasing any appreciation for the chanced lot of mankind per se. Like stem cell research, the real issue is the idea of Promethean interference with creation- even if it is only bacteria and viruses; and this argument never really had much credence to its claims, because the entire field of medicine ‘plays God’ in some sense. By considering the potential of synthetic biology and eschewing a by-the-book mentality, we can approach bioethics from a more pragmatic view.
Unlike abortion and stem cell research, synthetic biology calls for ethicists to consider the morality of creating any type of life- not just human life (as President Murray of the Hastings Center mentions). In that way, we’re not addressing human giftedness or Kantian ethics at all, but a completely new dimension to bioethics.
Is the creation of life for experimentation/progress permissible? If we take beneficence out of the picture, does synthetic biology violate any morals? To what extent can we play God for the betterment of society?
--
--
http://whyy.org/cms/news/health-science/2010/09/13/maximizing-the-benefits-of-synthetic-biology/45357
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y4jt7oDrZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y4jt7oDrZI
1 comment:
In terms whether or not it's ethical to create life in the form of bacteria, viruses, and other microbes, I think that, considering the way that we treat non-human organisms (using animals mercilessly for lab testing, e.g.) and the fact that such actions are in line with the majority's current conception of what is ethical, it seems only reasonable that creating non-human life should fall into the same category as destroying non-human life. For our morality to be consistent, I thus think that, as long as we already do not ascribe any dignity to non-human life, the isolated act of creating it should have no ethical significance.
The ethical debate surrounding this issue then boils down to a concern over the ways in which people will choose to use these biologically engineered organisms, whether for good or for evil. As you mention, I definitely agree that this technology could be used for tremendous evil (terrorists/serial killers/psycopaths could create microscopic bugs that infect people with some terrible disease), and I think that as such it needs to be intensely regulated and only permitted in a few laboratories, possibly under constant government scrutiny. Nevertheless, as is the case with most bioengineering issues, I don't think the potential negative uses outweigh the potential positive uses that could come from such technology (creating microorganisms that eat cancer cells, for instance), and so I don't think that research in this field should be restricted (as stem cell research has been for so many years) but rather encouraged under the close eye of many regulatory bodies.
Post a Comment