Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

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

Could You Survive Nuclear Fallout?

Star Trek Philosophy: “Killing Is Wrong, No Matter Who’s Doing It”

What About Me?

How Digital Media Finally Enables Distributed Enterprise

Will technological unemployment lead to human disenhancement?

Don’t we all wish to be Wonder Woman or Superman?

ieet books

The Brain: The Story of You
David Eagleman


instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

spud100 on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 28, 2015)

Giulio Prisco on 'Viewpoints on Modern Cosmism' (Nov 28, 2015)

instamatic on 'Christians Should Support Scientists and Technologists' (Nov 27, 2015)

Rick Searle on 'Obfuscation: protect privacy by destroying the Web!' (Nov 27, 2015)

Mahee on 'Saudi Arabia implements electronic tracking system to monitor women’s movements' (Nov 27, 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


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

Why it matters that you realize you’re in a computer simulation
Nov 14, 2015
(67702) Hits
(14) Comments

The Future Business of Body Shops
Nov 15, 2015
(8000) Hits
(0) Comments

Crypto Enlightenment: A Social Theory of Blockchains
Nov 1, 2015
(7081) Hits
(0) Comments

Is Anyone Competent to Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
Nov 21, 2015
(3994) Hits
(1) Comments

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

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3158) 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:


Andrew Maynard is Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3159) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


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


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.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @