Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:24:32.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthetic Biology between Self-Regulation and Public Discourse: Ethical Issues and the Many Roles of the Ethicist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2017

GARDAR ARNASON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article discusses the roles of ethicists in the governance of synthetic biology. I am particularly concerned with the idea of self-regulation of bioscience and its relationship to public discourse about ethical issues in bioscience. I will look at the role of philosophical ethicists at different levels and loci, from the “embedded ethicist” in the laboratory or research project, to ethicists’ impact on policy and public discourse. In a democratic society, the development of governance frameworks for emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology, needs to be guided by a well-informed public discourse. In the case of synthetic biology, the public discourse has to go further than merely considering technical issues of biosafety and biosecurity, or risk management, to consider more philosophical issues concerning the meaning and value of “life” between the natural and the synthetic. I argue that ethicists have moral expertise to bring to the public arena, which consists not only in guiding the debate but also in evaluating arguments and moral positions and making normative judgments. When ethicists make normative claims or moral judgments, they must be transparent about their theoretical positions and basic moral standpoints.

Keywords

synthetic biologyself-regulationpublic discourserole of ethicists
Type
Special Section: Synthetic Biology: Ethical and Philosophical Challenges
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 246 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Gardner, TS, Cantor, CR, Collins, JJ. Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli . Nature 2000;403:339–42.Google ScholarPubMed

2. Elowitz, MB, Leibler, S. A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 2000;403:335–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Gardner, TS. Synthetic biology: from hype to impact. Trends in Biotechnology 2012;31(3):123–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. For more information on iGEM and biobricks see the following websites: iGEM; available at http://www.igem.org (last accessed 14 Jul 2016); BioBricks Foundation; available at http://www.biobricks.org (last accessed 14 Jul 2016); and Registry of Standard Biological Parts; available at http://parts.igem.org (last accessed 14 Jul 2016).

5. Gibson, DG, Glass, JI, Lartigue, C, Noskov, VN, Chuang, RY, Algire, MA, et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 2010;329(5987):52–6;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed and Katsnelson A. Synthetic genome resets biotech goals. Nature 2010;465:409.

6. Ledford, H. CRISPR: gene editing is just the beginning. Nature 2016;531:156–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Kuiken, T. Governance: learn from DIY biologists. Nature 2016;531:167–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also The ODIN; available at http://www.the-odin.com (last accessed 14 Jul 2016).

8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016.Google Scholar

9. Boeke, JD, Church, G, Hessel, A, Kelley, NJ, Arkin, A, Cai, Y, et al. The Genome Project–Write. Science 2016;353(6295):126–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI). New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies December 2010; available at http://bioethics.gov/synthetic-biology-report (last accessed 11 Jul 2016). See also Kaebnick, GE, Gusmano, MK, Murray, TH. The ethics of synthetic biology: next steps and prior questions. Synthetic future: can we create what we want out of synthetic biology? Special report. Hastings Center Report 2014;44(6):S4–S26;CrossRefGoogle Scholar The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. Ethics of Synthetic Biology. Opinion No 25. Brussels: European Commission; 2009; and Douglas, T, Savulescu, J. Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics 2010;36:687–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Wiek, A, Guston, D, Frow, E, Calvert, J. Sustainability and anticipatory governance in synthetic biology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 2012;3(2):25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Hindmarsh, R, Gottweis, H. Recombinant regulation: the Asilomar legacy 30 years on. Science as Culture 2005;14(4):299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Genewatch. GeneWatch PR: Global Coalition Sounds the Alarm on Synthetic Biology, Demands Oversight and Societal Debate. News release, May 19, 2006; available at http://www.genewatch.org/press-492860 (last accessed 14 Jul 2016).

14. Aldhous P. Synthetic biologists reject controversial guidelines. New Scientist, May 23, 2006; available at https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9211-synthetic-biologists-reject-controversial-guidelines/ (last accessed 16 Jul 2016).

15. Barinaga, M. Asilomar revisited: lessons for today? Science 2000;287(5458):1584–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Hurlbut, JB. Limits of responsibility: genome editing, Asilomar, and the politics of deliberation. Hastings Center Report 2015;45(5):11–4, at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See note 16, Hurlbut 2015, at 12, quoting Culliton BJ. Kennedy: pushing for more public input in research. Science 1975;188:1188.

18. Jasanoff, S, Hurlbut, JB, Saha, K. CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology 2015;32(1):37–49.Google Scholar

19. Black, J. Decentring regulation: understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ’post-regulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems 2001;54(1):103–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See note 10, PCSBI 2010, at 28.

21. See note 10, PCSBI 2010, at 29.

22. Calvert, J, Martin, P. The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO reports 2009;10(3):201–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Vincent BB. Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biological Theory 2013;8:368–75, at 370.

24. See note 23, Vincent 2013, at 370; also Rabinow, P, Bennet, G. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. See note 23, Vincent 2013.

26. Crosthwaite, J. In defence of ethicists. A commentary on Christopher Cowley’s paper. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2005;8:281–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. Schüklenk, U, Lott, JP. Bioethics and (public) policy advice. In: Thiele, F, Mader, K, Ashcroft, RE, eds. Bioethics in a Small World. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer; 2005:129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. See note 27, Schüklenk, Lott 2005, at 133.

29. See note 27, Schüklenk, Lott 2005, at 135.

30. See note 27, Schüklenk, Lott 2005, at 136.

31. See note 27, Schüklenk, Lott 2005, at 137.

32. Takala, T. Demagogues, firefighters, and window dressers: who are we and what should we be? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2005;14:385–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. See note 32, Takala 2005, at 388.

34. Campbell, AT. Bioethics in the public square: reflections on the how . Journal of Medical Ethics 2012;38(7):439–41 at 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar