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

The Future of Robotic Automated Labor

Consciousness and Neuroscience

Fusion: “Posthuman” - 3D Printed Tissues and Seeing Through Walls!

Philosopher Michael Lynch Says Privacy Violations Are An Affront To Human Dignity

Transhumanism: The Robot Human: A Self-Generating Ecosystem

Indefinite Life Extension and Broader World Health Collaborations (Part II)


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

Kris Notaro on 'The Future of Robotic Automated Labor' (Oct 25, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why “Why Transhumanism Won’t Work” Won’t Work' (Oct 24, 2014)

Abolitionist on 'Is using nano silver to treat Ebola misguided?' (Oct 24, 2014)

cacarr on 'Book review: Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence"' (Oct 24, 2014)

jasoncstone on 'Ray Kurzweil, Google's Director Of Engineering, Wants To Bring The Dead Back To Life' (Oct 22, 2014)

pacificmaelstrom on 'Why “Why Transhumanism Won’t Work” Won’t Work' (Oct 21, 2014)

rms on 'Smut in Jesusland: Why Bible Belt States are the Biggest Consumers of Online Porn' (Oct 21, 2014)







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


Google’s Cold Betrayal of the Internet
Oct 10, 2014
(7547) Hits
(2) Comments

Dawkins and the “We are going to die” -Argument
Sep 25, 2014
(5749) Hits
(21) Comments

Should we abolish work?
Oct 3, 2014
(5184) Hits
(1) Comments

Will we uplift other species to sapience?
Sep 25, 2014
(4612) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Security > Biosecurity > Rights > Life > Innovation > Vision > Bioculture > Technoprogressivism > Contributors > Andrew Maynard

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (2192) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Do we need a better definition for synthetic biology?


Andrew Maynard
By Andrew Maynard
2020 Science

Posted: Jul 16, 2014

Jim Thomas of the ETC Group has just posted a well reasoned article on the Guardian website  on the challenges of defining the the emerging technology of “synthetic biology”.  The article is the latest in a series of exchanges addressing the potential risks of the technology and its effective regulation.

Alleged use of synthetic biology challenged

At the end of May, the New York Times published a piece on the Belgian company Ecover – a household cleaning and personal care products company that’s heavily focused on sustainability – that highlighted the company’s decision to move from using palm oil to an algal oil allegedly derived from synthetic biology.  In response, 17 groups publicly petitioned Ecover to reconsider their decision to use a synthetic biology-derived product.  Led by the ETC Group and including signatories from groups such as Consumers Union and Friends of the Earth, the open letter claimed that a combination of unknown risks, the lack of a synthetic biology-specific regulatory framework, social justice challenges with their Briazilian-sourced sugar cane feedstock, and the available of alternative oil sources, brought into question the appropriateness of  Ecover’s decision.

Counter arguments

In response, on June 27th Ecover challenged a number of the claims in the open letter, while committing to a fact-based dialogue on their use of specific technologies.

They also challenged the allegation that they are using a product based on synthetic biology, noting that

The genetic modification process used by the supplier of our algal oil employs the natural mutation process of algae and standard industrial fermentation. Our supplier uses microalgae strains that have been in existence longer than we have, and they work within their natural oil producing pathways using decades-old molecular biology techniques to produce algal oil.

And this is where Jim Thomas in his Guardian article questions whether companies are beginning to play around with definitions to exploit new DNA-based technologies, while avoiding unwanted public scrutiny and regulatory attention.

To define or not to define

The discussion mirrors those that have plagued other areas like nanotechnology for several years.  Here, I’ve been quite vocal against  becoming tramlined by definitions of engineered nanomaterials that potentially obscure serious health and environmental challenges from materials that don’t quite fit the mould, but nevertheless present new risk challenges.  In principle, it should be easier to define synthetic biology in ways that make sense from a regulatory perspective, as the domain of engineering and design is much narrower than nanotechnology.  But there are still a number of glaring challenges in my mind, including:

Can definitions be developed that are truly effective in both protecting people and the environment while empowering responsible innovation?

Is it possible to avoid the debate over regulatory definitions being hijacked by interests that are not related to direct health and environmental impacts?  And

If a broadly accepted working definition for regulatory purposes  is developed,  who will be evaluating the risks of those organisms and products that slip through the net, yet may still represent significant concerns?

Hopefully, the emerging dialogue will address these in a responsive, inclusive and evidence-based manner.  In the meantime, companies that previously claimed to be using synthetic biology are going dark, and that cannot be helpful in the long run to ensuring the technology’s responsible development.


More Information

Note: a useful analysis on synthetic biology and regulation was recently published by the J. Craig Venter Institute:

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND THE U.S. BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SYSTEM: Challenges and Options. May 2014


Andrew Maynard is Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (2193) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Cyborg Buddha

Previous entry: Widerquist on Freedom and the Basic Income

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