Team:TUDelft/Ethics

From 2009.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(→Reductionism in Synthetic Biology, an Ethical Issue)
 
(82 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009}}
+
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009_menu_Ethics}}
-
=Engineering Biology=  
+
=Reductionism in Synthetic Biology, an Ethical Issue=  
 +
Since genetic engineering was first applied in 1973, research on enhancing micro-organisms has taken a leap. The ability to change the behavior of biological systems by modifying the genetic code has been the basis for research in synthetic biology. Although the possibilities of synthetic biology seem promising and applications are virtually endless, concerns are raised about the fast progression, possible risks and ethical implications.
 +
<br><br>
 +
A rough division of the different main concerns in synthetic biology is shown in Figure 1. Ethical and political issues concerning bio-safety, bio-security and intellectual property rights have been discussed elaborately. Ethical discussions concerning the top-down (reductionist) approach towards understanding living systems and the bottom-up approach of enhancing/creating biological systems are lagging behind. Craig Venter, one of the lead researchers in synthetic biology, is working on a controversial project with a goal to create artificial life. He is one of many that use the reductionist and bottom-up approach in biology to search for the foundation of life.             
 +
<br>
-
==Introduction==
+
[[Image:Framework4.jpg|thumb|550px|Figure 1. Road map illustrating a rough division of the main issues in synthetic biology, based on a [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=166192&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=492968 presentation] of Dr. Arthur Caplan.]]
-
Since the marriage between technologies in molecular and cellular biology together with genetic engineering gave life to a new phenomenon called synthetic biology, a lot of ethical questions were raised. Although the definition of synthetic biology is not yet clear and future implications are yet uncertain, research in the field of synthetic biology is at its peak. Different articles claim that synthetic biology is the answer to curing cancer and the production of bio-fuel, and several leading universities assembled specific departments for this field of research. An OpenWetware created by the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, gives free access to a large registry of BioBricks: basic “ready to use” biological machinery components. The most important resource for these BioBricks comes from the yearly iGEM (international genetically engineered machine) competition, in which teams of students can compete on building the best microorganism machine by combining, describing, implementing and/or designing these biological standardized parts.
+
<br> 
-
 
+
Reductionism can be explained as an approach to understand complex systems by reducing them to their subsystems. In biology, a way to understand the nature of complex living entities is by looking at the function of individual components (e.g. DNA, proteins) and their relations. The bottom-up approach of (re-)engineering biological systems is the modifying of such components, mainly by genetic engineering techniques. How the different approaches are related to understanding life and creating artificial life is shown in Figure 2. More information on ethical issues in synthetic biology can be found in the [https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft/Ethics_background Background] section.  
-
===Frameworks===
+
-
There is a lot of literature on ethical issues in synthetic biology. A road map to illustrate these main concerns is shown in Figure 1. This road map (based on a paper of [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/.com Parens, 2009]) is generally applicable for emerging technologies, but is currently designed to focus on synthetic biology. The ethical concerns that are mainly addressed in literature are "physical harms" and concerns gained by researchers "closest to action" in synthetic biology. The first concerns on bio-safety and bio-security, where the latter involves matters such as intellectual property rights and transparency. The scientific community lacks an appropriate attitude towards themselves and the rest of the world. An undervaluated but nevertheless important subject in synthetic biology is the notion that we might change the perception of life when we try to (re-)engineer it or even try to create it from scratch (as Craig Venter is trying to accomplish with its minimal Genome project). The reductionist approach (reducing complex systems to subsystems for better understanding)  has brought a lot of benefits in understanding physics and chemistry, and has definitely helped in understanding biological systems. But now we have come to the point that we are designing living systems. Some believe we are at the brink of defining and even creating life.          
+
<br>
<br>
-
[[Image:Framework1.jpg]]
+
[[Image:Framework5.jpg|thumb|550px|Figure 2. Road map illustrating the connection between the reductionist and bottom-up approaches in understanding and creating life respectively.]]
<br>
<br>
-
including:
 
-
* Bio-safety (Regulations for working in synthetic biology)
 
-
* Bio-security (Consequences of synthetic biology, e.g. bio-terrorism)
 
-
* Intelectual property rights (conflict of interest, fair distribution of benefits and who owns what?)
 
-
* Transparency (open source, availability) 
 
-
<br>
 
-
Issues that are at least as important but unfortunately less frequently discussed in literature are concerns about "non-physical harms" and questions raised by the community, including:
 
-
* Communication (towards public and media)
 
-
* Naturalness (or artificialness)
 
-
* Attitude (towards life)
 
-
* Reductionism (consequences and implications when reducing biological systems)
 
-
<br>
 
-
Since the introduction of synthetic biology, ethical issues have been addressed and opinions, frameworks and solutions have been proposed. To get an overview of our responsibilities concerning different ethical topics we propose a framework that describes the main ethical considerations from a personal perspective, as shown in Figure 2.
 
-
<br>
 
-
[[Image:Framework2.jpg]]
 
-
<br>
 
-
The personal view describes features on how we perceive synthetic biology, what is our attitude towards life, and why do we participate in such research. The believes, perceptions and reasons for people to understand and work in the field of biology will vary between individuals. It is good to give these different subjects some thought, to make evaluation of the research somewhat easier. Moreover, when working together in a team it is important to know  that team members can have different opinions. A healthy discussion can help the research because you can respect each others differences, learn of other viewpoints. Furthermore, it shows peoples personal qualities.
 
-
<br><br>
 
-
Externally, researchers are responsible on a social level for communication and security of the public. On a scientific level they should concern the safety of themselves and co-workers. In synthetic biology specifically they have to think about the consequences of making biological components freely available, how to deal with intellectual property rights and to what extend the research should be transparent to the community.
 
-
 
-
===Responsibility===
 
-
The proposed framework can function as a guideline for what is important and what are our responsibilities when working on synthetic biology. Although most of the topics are addressed in literature, policymakers are lagging behind in making regulations concerning these topics. Specifically a lot of questions are raised concerning bio-safety and bio-security. For example, what are the possibilities for bio terrorist or what are the consequences of do-it-yourself synthetic biology, where people can engineer organisms in their own backyard. Regulations and policies should clear up this fog of uncertainty. But the problem is: who is responsible? Should the government create certain guidelines, or should the scientific community self-regulate their own research? Are existing guidelines and safety measures on genetic engineering enough, or do we need to extend this? What about the open source properties, what if somebody patents a gene? Another question that follows from this discussion is whether synthetic biology is as new as some papers make us believe. Do we really need new guidelines? Did we not already describe safety regulations to keep modified organisms in the laboratories?
+
How do the public and the scientific community feel and think about life-related questions and the reductionism approach in biology? These are difficult questions. But now that we are directing evolution and trying to artificially create life, we have come to a point at which we need to discuss these issues. We will never get a clear answer on philosophical questions such as, "what is life?", even the scientific community is much too homogeneous for that. Still, a discussion to raise awareness and make us think about these questions could help in the debate on whether researchers should pursue the controversial goals that are present in synthetic biology. Furthermore, communication to the general public should be much easier if an overview of the different believes and opinions within the scientific community are available. 
<br><br>
<br><br>
-
These are difficult questions, certainly because key stakeholders will have different opinions and demands. Although these questions have an ethical undertone, they are better categorized in the policy and regulatory field. The ethical aspects have been described extensively. It is now up to the policymakers to identify the problems, see where guidelines are needed and implement clear regulations when necessary.
+
A qualitative and quantitative analysis on the opinions of researchers on reductionism in synthetic biology could be achieved by approaching many people in this particular field of science (mostly iGEM supervisors and participants). To pursue the quantitative analysis, I have invited many iGEM teams to complete a short questionnaire. <br><br>
-
===Reductionism in Biology===
+
The [https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft/Ethics_methods survey] on reductionism in synthetic biology is now closed. We are grateful to all the people who took the time to participate in the survey. Thanks to them we now have a total of '''242''' [https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft/Ethics_results responses] of iGEM students, supervisors and advisors.<br><br>
-
 
+
[https://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft/Ethics_conclusions Conclusions], the headlines:
 +
* Participants believe that the value of life cannot be changed by synthetic biology
 +
* Craig Venter's research is presumed not to involve creating new life forms, but rather applying genetic engineering
 +
* Safety and security issues are acknowledged and additional regulation should minimize their risks
 +
* Synthetic biologists are generally careful, but the public wants more
 +
* There is no relation between the existence of a God and sacred or holy properties of life
 +
* Communication with the general public is difficult but perceived necessary
 +
* Life can possibly never be explained by mankind
 +
* The reductionist approach towards understanding life is limiting
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
===Aim and approach===
+
-
 
+
-
A qualitative and quantitative analysis on how the opinions of researchers shape the technology known as synthetic biology, could be achieved by approaching many people in this particular field of science (mostly iGEM supervisors and participants). To pursue the quantitative analysis, I would like to invite as many iGEM teams as possible to complete a short questionnaire that should display their general opinion on ethical concerns in synthetic biology.
+
<br><br>
<br><br>
-
 
+
<FONT SIZE="-2">
-
=
+
'''References''': [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/ Parens, 2006] | [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6914/full/420350b.html Check, 2002]
 +
</FONT>
 +
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009_end}}

Latest revision as of 02:12, 22 October 2009

Reductionism in Synthetic Biology, an Ethical Issue

Since genetic engineering was first applied in 1973, research on enhancing micro-organisms has taken a leap. The ability to change the behavior of biological systems by modifying the genetic code has been the basis for research in synthetic biology. Although the possibilities of synthetic biology seem promising and applications are virtually endless, concerns are raised about the fast progression, possible risks and ethical implications.

A rough division of the different main concerns in synthetic biology is shown in Figure 1. Ethical and political issues concerning bio-safety, bio-security and intellectual property rights have been discussed elaborately. Ethical discussions concerning the top-down (reductionist) approach towards understanding living systems and the bottom-up approach of enhancing/creating biological systems are lagging behind. Craig Venter, one of the lead researchers in synthetic biology, is working on a controversial project with a goal to create artificial life. He is one of many that use the reductionist and bottom-up approach in biology to search for the foundation of life.

Figure 1. Road map illustrating a rough division of the main issues in synthetic biology, based on a [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=166192&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=492968 presentation] of Dr. Arthur Caplan.


Reductionism can be explained as an approach to understand complex systems by reducing them to their subsystems. In biology, a way to understand the nature of complex living entities is by looking at the function of individual components (e.g. DNA, proteins) and their relations. The bottom-up approach of (re-)engineering biological systems is the modifying of such components, mainly by genetic engineering techniques. How the different approaches are related to understanding life and creating artificial life is shown in Figure 2. More information on ethical issues in synthetic biology can be found in the Background section.

Figure 2. Road map illustrating the connection between the reductionist and bottom-up approaches in understanding and creating life respectively.


How do the public and the scientific community feel and think about life-related questions and the reductionism approach in biology? These are difficult questions. But now that we are directing evolution and trying to artificially create life, we have come to a point at which we need to discuss these issues. We will never get a clear answer on philosophical questions such as, "what is life?", even the scientific community is much too homogeneous for that. Still, a discussion to raise awareness and make us think about these questions could help in the debate on whether researchers should pursue the controversial goals that are present in synthetic biology. Furthermore, communication to the general public should be much easier if an overview of the different believes and opinions within the scientific community are available.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis on the opinions of researchers on reductionism in synthetic biology could be achieved by approaching many people in this particular field of science (mostly iGEM supervisors and participants). To pursue the quantitative analysis, I have invited many iGEM teams to complete a short questionnaire.

The survey on reductionism in synthetic biology is now closed. We are grateful to all the people who took the time to participate in the survey. Thanks to them we now have a total of 242 responses of iGEM students, supervisors and advisors.

Conclusions, the headlines:

  • Participants believe that the value of life cannot be changed by synthetic biology
  • Craig Venter's research is presumed not to involve creating new life forms, but rather applying genetic engineering
  • Safety and security issues are acknowledged and additional regulation should minimize their risks
  • Synthetic biologists are generally careful, but the public wants more
  • There is no relation between the existence of a God and sacred or holy properties of life
  • Communication with the general public is difficult but perceived necessary
  • Life can possibly never be explained by mankind
  • The reductionist approach towards understanding life is limiting




References: [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/ Parens, 2006] | [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6914/full/420350b.html Check, 2002]

Retrieved from "http://2009.igem.org/Team:TUDelft/Ethics"