Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies



Support the IEET



The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

What, Me Worry? - I Don’t Share Most Concerns About Artificial Intelligence

If We No Longer Force People to Work to Meet Their Basic Needs, Won’t They Stop Working?

Neural Data Privacy Rights - An Issue We *Should* Be Worried About

Wallach, Hughes, Vita-More, Smart, Lin, Darling @ Governance of Emerging Technologies

When Is A Minion Not A Minion? - Should We Create Aware Machines?

India: little real progress for most people during the 20-year economic boom


ieet books

Apex
Author
Ramez Naam


comments

Peter Kinnon on 'What, Me Worry? - I Don’t Share Most Concerns About Artificial Intelligence' (May 26, 2015)

instamatic on 'Does the Biblical God Exist? - I Think We Can Do Better' (May 26, 2015)

spud100 on 'The Argument for Legalizing Psychedelics - Part 1: Cognitive Liberty and Creativity' (May 26, 2015)

spud100 on 'What, Me Worry? - I Don’t Share Most Concerns About Artificial Intelligence' (May 26, 2015)

Lincoln Cannon on 'The Semi-Orthogonality Thesis - examining Nick Bostrom’s ideas on intelligent purpose' (May 26, 2015)

rms on 'Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck' (May 26, 2015)

dobermanmac on 'The Semi-Orthogonality Thesis - examining Nick Bostrom’s ideas on intelligent purpose' (May 26, 2015)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


The Scientific Method is a Scientific Idea that is Ready for Retirement
May 24, 2015
(11545) Hits
(3) Comments

The Age of Transhumanist Politics Has Begun: Will It Change Traditional Concepts of Left and Right?
Apr 27, 2015
(9936) Hits
(5) Comments

We Should Consider The Future World As One Of Multi-Species Intelligence
May 20, 2015
(7592) Hits
(4) Comments

‘Let’s Kick Islam & Christianity out of Africa’ - interview with Nigerian activist Jd Otit
May 19, 2015
(6255) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET > Security > Biosecurity > SciTech > Life > Innovation > Vision > Technoprogressivism > Contributors > Andrew Maynard

Print Email permalink (1) Comments (7720) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


The Future Safety of Synthetic Biology


Andrew Maynard
By Andrew Maynard
2020 Science

Posted: May 28, 2010

Last week’s announcement from the J. Craig Venter Institute that scientists had created the first-ever synthetic cell was a profoundly significant point in human history, and marked a turning point in our quest to control the natural world. But the ability to use this emerging technology wisely is already being dogged by fears that we have embarked down a dangerous and morally dubious path.

It’s no surprise therefore that, hot on the heels of last week’s announcement, President Obama called for an urgent study to identify appropriate ethical boundaries and minimize possible risks associated with the breakthrough.

This was a bold and important move on the part of the White House.  But its success will lie in ensuring the debate over risks in particular is based on sound science, and not sidetracked by groundless speculation.
image
The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work – in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms – heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation.  As if to underline this, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce heard testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential yesterday – just days after last week’s announcement. 

But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life?  What happens if the technology gets into the wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?

Questions like these have challenged scientists, ethicists and decision makers for many years, and with good reason – our headlong charge into advanced genetic manipulation is taking us into uncharted and uncertain territory.  But the breakthroughs made by Craig Venter and his team place a new urgency on developing policies, ethics and research strategies in support of safe and acceptable synthetic biology.

The ethics in particular surrounding synthetic biology are far from clear; the ability to custom-design the genetic code that resides in and defines all living organisms challenges our very notions of what is right and what is acceptable.  Which is no doubt why President Obama wasted no time in charging the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look into the technology.

But in placing ethics so high up the agenda, my fear is that more immediate safety issues might end up being overlooked.

It’s not that safety isn’t on the radar – there is already tremendous speculation over the potential impacts of synthetic biology.  But with one or two exceptions (including work from the J. Craig Venter Institute), there seems little science behind many of these conjectures.  And actions based on speculation alone may endanger the tremendous good that could come from this rapidly emerging technology, while potentially opening the door to unintended consequences.

Rather, scientists, policy makers and developers urgently need to consider how synthetic biology might legitimately lead to people and the environment being endangered, and how this is best avoided.

What we need is a science-based dialogue on potential emergent risks that present new challenges, the plausibility of these risks leading to adverse impacts, and the magnitude and nature of the possible harm that might result.  Only then will we be able to develop a science-based foundation on which to build a safe technology.

Synthetic biology is still too young to second-guess whether artificial microbes will present new risks; whether bio-terror or bio-error will result in harmful new pathogens; or whether blinkered short-cuts will precipitate catastrophic failure. But the sheer momentum and audacity of the technology will inevitably lead to new and unusual risks emerging.

And this is precisely why the safety dialogue needs to be grounded in science now, before it becomes entrenched in speculation.

In six months’ time, the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will be presenting President Obama with its findings and recommendations on the implications of synthetic biology.  Hopefully as well as grappling with the ethics of nanotechnology, their recommendations will also address the potential and plausible risks associated with the technology, and the science that is needed to ensure its safe development and use.

Because without sound science guiding the safety dialogue, there is every chance that synthetic biology will be derailed by mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding.

And if that happens, it’s hard to see how anyone can win.


Andrew Maynard is Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Print Email permalink (1) Comments (7721) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


The mentioned work took about 10 years costing milions of dollars. However, the result is deserve the invesment.

The following discussion may be interesting

http://biology-talk.com/what-is-the-cost-for-a-synthetic-genome-lab/2010/12/18/





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Technological and Political Progressivism in Historical Buddhist Thought

Previous entry: Bugs, Bits and Engineering Bioforms

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376