TWO CONCERNS ABOUT SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY

TOM DOUGLAS AND JULIAN SAVULESCU

OXFORD UEHIRO CENTRE FOR PRACTICAL ETHICSUNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

Cello et al. 2002de novo synthesis of poliovirus

Venter proposalminimal bacterial

chassis

competing definitions

synthetic biology = de novo synthesis of biological organisms/components

broaddefinition

narrowdefinition

benefits

medical applications (diagnostics and therapeutics)

environmental applications (biofuels, biosensors, bioremediation)

industrial applications

ContextEthical issues no different to:

genetic engineering, transgenesis, chimerasmachine-mind interfaces

artificial reproduction, eg cloning

Moral landscape: ethical concerns

1. synthetic biology poses a high risk of malevolent use – precautionary principle

2. synthetic biology will undermine or fail to respect the moral status of living things – discrimination, inequality, etc

3. synthetic biology will result in accidental harm

4. synthetic biology will lead to the enhancement of human beings – moral imperative to enhance human beings

5. “Playing God”/unnatural/dignity of life/commodification of life objs

Will focus on 1 and 2 as these are most serious and common obj

our claims

on their most plausible interpretations, these two concerns can be understood as variants of a common concern about promoting

future wrongdoing

the most common strategy for dissolving this concern (scientific isolationism) fails

the first concern – possible malevolent use

Cello et al. 2002de novo synthesis of poliovirus

Tumpey et al. 2005Reconstruction of 1918 Spanish influenza virus

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

XX

the second concern – undermining the moral status of living things

Cho, Magnus, Caplan & McGee (1999):

creation of beings between living

things & machines

acceptance of reductionist

account of life

no longer ascribe “special status” to

life

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

MO

RAL

STAT

US

PERSONS: human rights

interestsintrinsic value

NON-HUMAN ANIMALS:?? rights

? interests? intrinsic value

MACHINES:no rights or interests

instrumental value only

PRODUCTS OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY

???

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

a reformulation of the second concern

synthetic beings assigned great moral status

human/animal interests sacrificed

for the sake of synthetic beings

humans/animals harmed

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

humans/animals assigned lesser

moral status (on some theories)

two possibilities

we correctly assign great moral status to synthetic beings

→ humans/animals get permissibly harmed

we incorrectly assign great moral status to synthetic beings

→ humans/animals get wrongly harmed

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

unifying the two concerns

CONCERN ONE:synthetic agents used in

malevolent ways

CONCERN TWO:human/animal interests get

wrongly sacrificed for the sake of synthetic beings (or the reverse)

pursuing research in synthetic biology brings about future

wrongdoing

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

scientific isolationism – a way of dissolving the concern?

ethics of research

ethics of technology

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

scientific freedom

the claimscientists enjoy a right to absolute freedom of enquiry

but...scientists should not engage in all research that they have a right to engage in

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

argument one – the intrinsic value of knowledge

the claimscientific inquiry is justified by the intrinsic value of the knowledge it produces

but...this assumes that the value of knowledge trumps other moral value

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

argument two – the gunmaker’s defence

the claima scientist is not responsible for malevolent uses of her research

but...wrongs for which we are not responsible can still be relevant to the ethical assessment of our conduct

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

argument three – “it’s futile”

the claimindividual scientists/policymakers can’t significantly affect the rate of scientific progress

but...a small delay might enable better regulation

and...small initial changes may have large knock-on effects

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

argument four – uncertainty

the claimwe can’t predict the future, so any principle which requires us to do so is unworkable

but...it may well be possible to identify predictors of malevolent use – we haven’t even tried

1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism

conclusions

the two concerns – about malevolent use and about undermining moral status – can be understood as variants of a moral general concern about bringing about wrongdoing

the most popular way of dissolving this concern – scientific isolationism – fails

Challengesfor regulators

minimise the risk of malevolent use of synthetic biology

for scientists

get better at predicting how research will be used

for philosophers

ascertain the criteria for moral status

determine how to weigh risk of future wrongdoing against benefits of pursuing research in synthetic biology and analyse arguments for and against synthetic biology

Way Forward

1. Good science – risks and benefits2. Minimise existential risks - restriction of knowledge, raw materials,

etc3. Comprehensive evaluation of abilities, phenomenology, etc of new

life forms4. Appropriate ascription of moral status 5. Equal respect – to treat like cases alike, unless there is a relevant

moral difference

acknowledgements

Dominic Wilkinson, Michael Selgelid

The Wellcome Trust, Christ Church College