Team:Paris/Brainstorm ideafirstweek

Protocols Freezer NoteBook Bibliography Parts WetLab DryLab

Team Collaborations Contacts Acknowledgements Links

Ethical Lab Book

Main - Introduction - Practices - Global - Our project

Introduction

• 08/18 : Introduction : why ethical reflexion in science? life science? synthetic biology?

Today, the main aim was to introduce ethical questions in science in a general way. We start by asking ourselves that question : « What are the condition I have to accept to get a new knowledge? », in other words and in a “what acceptable means to our end” process, what do we have to consider first and fundamentally : our quest of knowledge or the possible consequences of that knowledge, by his existence itself or in its applications.

We wonder about the tension between the fact that ethical interesting are necessary but implies also a certain slowing down of the research and innovation process. That led us to the precautionary principle, starting with the fact that it seems impossible to get the effect of a certain discovery without experiment it. Under that light, the precautionary principle appears as a limitation of the research process, even worst, something which incite ourselves to inaction.

All that questions and arguments went with a lot of concrete examples : treatment of nuclear waste, stem cells cases in France and in the US, psychology experiment with animals in the 50's and 60's and many other. Then, I propose to examine who had to take the final decisions in science, regarding that ethical problems. The position of the team is quite homogeneous : the scientific has to take the decision, because the one who hold knowledge has to be the responsible for. The way of doing it should be as a council or anything which represent the scientific community. Soufiane, who propose a more social and democratic solution : if everyone, every citizen is concerned by scientific productions, everyone has to decide. Everyone admits that, anyway, nowdays, the legislator is the one who, at least, take the decision.

At the end of that first one hour talk, some proposal and analysis were expressed : Knowledge is amoral, and the ethical problems relies on applications. what about a “note of a good use” written by scientist?

To conclude very briefly that first post, we can notice that, from the first question to the final point, all that ethical questions, analysis and recommendation are specifically express from the scientific standpoint. The main issue here is to deal with the will of getting knowledge and how this will has to be acceptable. That kind of reflexions should be very different in a different community. The ethical questions, deeply pragmatic, are included and performed in that “how to” concern. That “how to” venture is, then, framed and state as a “how to get and, at the same time, manage knowledge and his application”.

• 08/19 : Team brainstorming about synthetic biology definition

Today the aim of our talk was to discuss, to confront personal opinions and to challenge defining collectively synthetic biology.

I submit that exercise to the team because, by reading the literature and regarding the main concept called up to define that new disciplinary approach of biology I realize the diversity of slanted definition. We generally find the engineering method and the design of the parts as the main and common stand to build a definition of synthetic biology. Some refers to the bottom up and top down methods of manipulating life, others gets to design to characterize synthetic biology (put forward to description or understanding of “natural biology”). Utility, artificiality, function, component, living devices and systems, assembling and disassembling are the different concepts, methods and materials which lead scientist, sociologist and others researcher to their particular definition, performing through their use a certain regard on it.

We round the table to estimate the degree of diversity in definition of our own team. The main term used by the team was the idea of “giving new function to an organism”, mostly enriched by the idea of utility. In their own world : “creating”, “re creating”, “engineering”, “using”, “knowing and being able to divide” the living. The diversity already seen in the literature was express in the aim of that approaches : Charlotte proposed the idea of “controlled evolution” (to give an organism some characteristics it wouldn't develop “naturally”). Guillaume, Vicard, Pierre and Christophe was concerned about the idea of what new and defined function we can get from that organism. Romain propose a quite different approach, putting knowledge as the heart, saying that knowing each functions precisely, being able to divide and to synthesize it as a prove of our knowledge on the living.

In that brief sketch, we find that “evolutionary approach”, which lead synthetic biology in a larger paradigm of life science, but, reversing the usual trend by putting biological practices and goals as a new cause of change, a new way for the organism to gets new characteristic. Clause to the agronomic perspective, the evolution of organisms in synthetic biology is now manage, decided and operate by man, and not anymore by the own organism needs. Then, we gets to the pragmatical perspective of “making an organism doing something we decide”. At least, we find that kind of theoretical inventory of biological knowledges perform across molecular biology methods.This last perspective seems to be close to the “re-writing” process, seen as a performance of our knowledge and technologies about life science.

After covering our own definition, I submit to the team definitions we can find in the literature, proposing to discuss it.

• Artificiality

The idea of synthetic biology seen as building “artificial life” is quite rejected, at least, temperate. The team rejects the idea that, in the lab work, the researcher would be in a “state of mind of creating artificial life”. They don't recognize themselves in that “Frankenstein attitude”. The fact that life sciences, with agronomy in particular, is about creating something “unnatural” is globally admit, but, can't be reduce to the synthetic biology practices.

• Utility and implementation in natural systems

To the team's mind, the difference between “natural” and “synthetic” biology is, for the first one “understand life”, for the second “using it”.

• Bio engineering : relations and differences with traditional engineering

That point lead the debate to a question : Are we able to put life into engineering process? That process is seen as a aim and a question. The aim of engineering is to get to simplicity to make things works together and to be able to build faster : it could be embodied in the “specification process”. The engineer's question is “Is this working?”. At that theoretical level, bio and traditional engineering could be compare. Things seems quite different in reality, and engineering is so called as a metaphor, an unrealistic aim for synthetic biology. That specification process is a fancy for biology, parts are not bolt, and will never be. That way, all the theoretical and material system which frame that bolt is impossible for biology. The “bolt paradigm” is not working here. Why? As traditional engineering works as a system, you don't have to be surprise, everything has to be planed in the specifications. In synthetic biology, limits of understanding are faced every time, so the “surprise”. Pierre propose the idea of retro engineering as more adapted : take the living to pieces, question it, and re build it by calling up that new knowledge. The main common thing to both disciplines is the way to “ask question” to the object : how do it work? How could it work better? The main difference is the fact that living things have history. Indeed, it could be compare to a mechanism, but, in reality, it is a mess.

That discussion was about defining synthetic biology. Usually, that kind of exercise is about setting links and differences of “object” to some other, seen as close, to get to his own particularities. We perform that exercise and tried to “locate” synthetic biology in a larger disciplinary field and to qualify it the closest way. We tried to draw a system of reference. I notice the diversity and heterogeneity of the references we discuss, which testify to me the interest of that discipline. Indeed, we went through methods (bottom up/top down, design/understanding), concepts (utility, artificiality), aims (creating, re creating, re writing, standardizing) and paradigms (evolution, engineering).

That large “landscape” shows the complexity and the stake of the exercise. To define oneself seems always both difficult and necessary. Referring to Evelyn Fox Keller's works, support by what we can sense by reading the literature and by attending that debate in the team, synthetic biology is trying to define itself and the final words will be, as always, decisive for the development of the science.