Team:TUDelft/Ethics

From 2009.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(→Project plan for ethics in iGEM and synthetic biology)
(→Reductionism in Synthetic Biology, an Ethical Issue)
 
(94 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009}}
+
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009_menu_Ethics}}
 +
 
 +
=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>
<br>
-
=Project plan for ethics in iGEM and synthetic biology=
 
-
Ethics is a generally underappreciated but rather important element in science and technology. Discussing ethics behind a scientific project, starting from the initial phase, can increase productivity and helps team members to value each other better by creating a working atmosphere in which everyone has a good understanding of why you are doing this research, what can be done with it, what the project is actually about and what are its applications, what kind of purpose is being pursued, and whom the project and project results might effect.  
+
[[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.]]
 +
 
 +
<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.
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
[[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>
 +
 
 +
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>
-
After a good discussion with Steven Flipse, last year’s iGEM team TUDelft member responsible for the ethics part of the project, I gained interesting insides in approaches and important matter to take into consideration when evaluating the ethics behind the project. It became clear that this takes time and should be done throughout the project, in which the initial phase as well as the reflection is very important for a complete story. 
+
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>
-
To make it more clearly, I would like to pursue the following model:
+
 
 +
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
 +
 
 +
<br><br>
<br><br>
-
'''1. IDEA'''<br>
+
<FONT SIZE="-2">
-
An idea is generally based on knowledge and creativity, but is also dependent on other input. The circumstances under which the idea came to be, but maybe more important, the purpose and the effects of the project should be discussed. (Literature: constructive technology assessment)
+
'''References''': [http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/ Parens, 2006] | [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6914/full/420350b.html Check, 2002]
-
<br><br>
+
</FONT>  
-
'''2. METHOD'''<br>
+
{{Template:TUDelftiGEM2009_end}}
-
During the experiments visions concerning the project will change based on e.g. new findings in literature. The value and applications as well as the research itself might change during the project. Moreover, it is important to notion what we are actually working on and reflect this throughout the project.  (Literature: user/producer interaction)
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
'''3. OUTCOME'''<br>
+
-
After reflecting the project, an important issue is to inform the public. What usually is ignored by scientists is something we might want to focus on: informing the “unknowing” public, for example by attracting local papers and student/university magazines and explaining in a more easy format the stuff we did, the purpose, application and the effects on society. (Literature: value sensitive design)
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
Summarizing, from an ethical perspective it is important to consider the '''''“what, why and for whom”''''' behind our project and discuss it in different points of time. This approach will be evaluated by making use of questionnaires which will be discussed individually, discussions concerning specific topics in the group, and by approaching media to inform the public.
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
To get a better ethical grip on synthetic biology in general, one suggestion is to either cooperate with other iGEM teams or use members of other (Dutch) teams to obtain more manpower and different opinions concerning synthetic biology. 
+
-
<br><br>
+
-
Notion: this is just a rough template on what to expect from ethics this year. I still have to think on this subject, work out a project plan and look up more details from other iGEM teams and their involvement in ethics. But hopefully you now have some idea of what to expect.   
+
-
<br>
+

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"