Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:47:42.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding Hope in Synthetic Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2017

TUIJA TAKALA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

For some, synthetic biology represents great hope in offering possible solutions to many of the world’s biggest problems, from hunger to sustainable development. Others remain fearful of the harmful uses, such as bioweapons, that synthetic biology can lend itself to, and most hold that issues of biosafety are of utmost importance. In this article, I will evaluate these points of view and conclude that although the biggest promises of synthetic biology are unlikely to become reality, and the probability of accidents is fairly substantial, synthetic biology could still be seen to benefit humanity by enhancing our ethical understanding and by offering a boost to world economy.

Keywords

synthetic biologyethicsconsequentialismhopeinvisible handbiosafetybiosecurity
Type
Special Section: Synthetic Biology: Ethical and Philosophical Challenges
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 239 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Vincent, BB. Between the possible and the actual: philosophical perspectives on the design of synthetic organisms. Futures 2013;48:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. syntheticbiology.org, n.d. (last accessed 17 Oct 2016).

3. Benner SA. Redesigning life: Fixing God’s mistakes. Presented at The Pittcom Program Conference, Orlando, FL, March 14, 2012.

4. Rose, N. The human sciences in a biological age. ICS Occasional Papers 2012;3:1–24.Google Scholar

5. Hayden, AC. Synthetic biologists seek standards for nascent field: common language and method are needed to fulfil the biofactory dream. Nature 2015;520:141–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Smith A. The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes. New York: Bantam Books, Mass Market Paperbacks; 2003.

7. See note 1, Vincent 2013.

8. Heavey P. Consequentialism and the synthetic biology problem. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26.

9. Church G. Let us go forth and safely multiply. Nature 2005;438:243.

10. Douglas, T, Savulescu, J. Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics 2010;36:687–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Cf. Holm S. The bioethicists who cried ”Synthetic biology”: an analysis of the function of bioterrorism predictions in bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26.

12. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 2002;297:1016–8.

13. Boldt, J, Müller, O. Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nature Biotechnology 2008;26:387–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Belt, H. Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics 2009;3:257–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Deplazes A, Huppenbauer M. Synthetic organisms and living machines: Positioning the products of synthetic biology at the borderline between living and non-living matter. Systems and Synthetic Biology 2009;3:55–63.

16. Häyry, M. Categorical objections to genetic engineering: A critique. In: Dyson, A, Harris, J, eds. Ethics and Biotechnology. London: Routledge;1994:202–15.Google Scholar

17. Chadwick R. Playing God. Cogito 1989;3:186–93.