|
Synthetic Biology and Human Practices
Synthetic biology has been hailed by some as the next technological revolution. It has been said that standard biological parts “will be for the 21st century what screws and bolts were to the 19th, or transistors and resistors to the 20th (Endy quoted in Parens, Johnston, and Moses, 2009).” Members in the field have visions of using synthetic biology to develop new applications in the areas of environment, health, and industry, as well as learning to understand the fundamental components of life itself. Significant progress has already been made evidenced by the ever increasing size of the registry of parts with applications in the areas listed above. With time other applications will likely arise.
As with any new technology, there exist potential benefits and potential areas of concern. There must be a balance between the desire to bring innovative and beneficial products to market and prevent potential harm to public health and the environment (Rodemeyer, 2009). Following are some of the issues that are commonly indicated as areas that must be addressed.
- Biosafety: How can research personnel, the environment, and society be protected from intended or accidental exposure to developed products?
- Biosecurity: What measures should be taken to ensure that products of synthetic biology are not used in a malevolent manner?
- Property Rights: What is the best way to share information to ensure that the field progresses rapidly, that opportunities to contribute are distributed fairly, and that contributors to the field are fairly compensated? Is it ethical to have a patent on life?
- Governance: What is the best way to implement policy that governs the field of synthetic biology? Is there a need for outside oversight or is self-governance sufficient? What challenges would arise if governing policy varied from country to country?
- Mankind and Nature: What roles should humans play in manipulating nature? Who should decide to what extent manipulation of life is acceptable?
- Public Perception and Involvement: Public involvement often is a deciding factor in funding and regulation. How should synthetic biology disseminate knowledge to the public and hear and address public concerns?
Efforts have been made to foster discussion about these areas and various measures to address them have been suggested (Maurer et al., 2006; Garfinkel et al., 2007). As synthetic biology is still in its youth, actions taken now and continued efforts to address these concerns in the future will enable the field to progress with minimal hindrance. “Procrastination bears a risk. A productive dialogue may become more difficult as synthetic biology evolves and stakeholders become divided in their opinions about benefits and risks (Rejeski, 2009a).” As the iGEM jamboree is the largest gathering related to synthetic biology in the world, we propose that initiative taken here will have a significant impact on the world. The “current and future leaders of the field” are participating in these gatherings (2009.igem.org/About).
iGEM and Education
Establishing governing policy for synthetic biology is complex and difficult to address (Rodemeyer, 2009). Problems can arise from limited jurisdiction of a governing body (Marchant & Pope, 2009) or the expense and cumbersome nature of monitoring activity (Rodemeyer, 2009) among other difficulties. Whatever policy is decided upon, the ultimate difficulty comes in enforcing the policy.
In preparation for the Synthetic Biology 2.0 conference in 2006, Laurie Zoloth addressing “ethics training” stated:
|
"
