Ethics of synthetic biology
Artificial life
Inna Cooper, <url>
The problem of artificial life and the name of Craig Venter regularly appear in the world and Russian media. In December 2010, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics in the United States published a report on synthetic biology entitled "New Directions: Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies" (report in English in pdf). The Commission met for three days and heard many reports and comments. The members of the commission came to the conclusion that at this stage the achievements of synthetic biology pose a small risk to society.
There are no reasons for government regulation or a moratorium on further research. Despite the fact that scientists have synthesized the genome of a bacterium and created a reproducing cell based on this genome, this achievement, according to the commission, is not the creation of life from inorganic materials. In other words, there is nothing radical in synthetic biology. There is no need to worry and adopt new laws, but we need to continue dialogue and cooperation.
The impetus for the government discussion of synthetic biology was an article by Craig Venter and his team, published on May 20, 2010 in the Online version of the journal Science. The article describes how the synthesized DNA of one bacterium was inserted into the cell of another, where it "earned" and began to produce proteins, while replacing the original DNA and actually turning one bacterium into another. Bioinformatician Mikhail Gelfand on the pages of the newspaper "Trinity Variant" gave a small reference about the achievements in the field of synthetic biology and about the work of Craig Venter. His conclusion, in a sense, coincides with the conclusion of the American Commission on Bioethics.
K. Venter and his team have done a technically difficult job, which, nevertheless, does not deserve the hype raised around it. There is no talk of any artificial life yet, and it's too early to talk about practical applications.
Not being a biologist, I cannot assess the degree of novelty/radicality of this and other achievements in the field of synthetic biology. Judging by the reports at the hearings of the bioethics commission, many agree that it is difficult – yes, radically – no. My area of expertise is the role and dissemination of information, including scientific information, in society. And it is in this context that I would like to substantiate the point of view that the "hype" deserves not a specific achievement of one laboratory, but the very topic of creating artificial life.
Even if this very life has not yet been created. And the sooner you "make noise", or rather carefully and rationally discuss philosophical, ethical and other aspects of this issue, the better. Otherwise, as in the case of GMOs, everything will already be done in terms of science and technology, and there will be no collective understanding of what has been achieved. And neither the laws will keep up with scientific achievements, nor the economy, nor human relations.
At first, the discussion about synthetic biology followed the traditional path of discussions around modern scientific problems. This is the path of sharp polarization. Some are "for", others are "against". Some see only benefit, others – only harm. On the one hand, the website of Craig Venter's company "Synthetic Genomics" claims that synthesis technologies will allow creating eco-friendly fuel, new vaccines and clean water. On the other hand, activists of the ETC group call synthetic biology a Pandora's box and call for stopping the development of these technologies: "... bioforms created in the laboratory can get into the environment, become biological weapons... their use threatens biological diversity. It is very disturbing that Craig Venter is collaborating with the most environmentally irresponsible companies, such as BP and Exxon, in attempts to commercialize synthetic bioforms."
The American Bioethics Commission has made serious efforts to create conditions for a balanced, rational and constructive discussion. In addition to the issues of using the achievements of synthetic biology and their benefits and harms, the following topics were included in the agenda: "Ethics of synthetic biology", "Knowledge and innovation for the benefit of society", "Philosophical and theological issues" and "Social responsibility". Among the speakers were professors of philosophy, bioethics, law, history and sociology of science, genetics, chemistry, bioengineering and medicine. In addition to representatives of academic science, practical researchers, businessmen and members of activist groups spoke. The commission included doctors, representatives of science and education and members of the government. One of the members of the commission is Lonnie Ali, the wife of boxer Mohammed Ali, who has been defending the rights of patients with Parkinson's disease and those who care for such patients for 20 years.
Among the issues of ethics and philosophy at the discussion of the commission, the issue of "playing God" was touched upon.
As Allen Buchanan and Russell Powell noted in their report, many are concerned that man claims to be God in his development of gene synthesis technologies. In various versions, critics insist that man should not interfere with the way nature works, and even more so we should not strive for complete control over nature. The authors of the report objected that if research in the field of gene synthesis is stopped on the basis of the argument of "playing God", humanity will miss many potential useful applications. Since, according to the authors, there is no serious harm from synthetic technologies at this stage, it makes no sense to abandon the potential benefits.
An analysis of this and other reports shows that, despite an attempt to introduce diversity into the discussion of synthetic biology, the commission constantly returned to discussing the issues of benefit and harm. As already mentioned at the beginning of the article, the commission took the potential benefit and the absence of harm as the basis of its conclusion and recommendations. The text of the report emphasizes the possible benefits and minimal risk. Thus, on 192 pages of the commission's report, the word benefit occurs 146 times, the word risk occurs 330 times, and the word harm occurs 78 times. But in addition to the benefits and harms in the matter of the synthesis of biological forms, there is also a philosophical aspect. This aspect touches deeper layers of collective consciousness and action and concerns the very concept of "life". After all, life is the key word in many texts about biological synthesis. And a thorough analysis of scientific and popular texts on the synthesis of biological forms shows that our understanding of life is gradually redefining in the direction of simplification and mechanization.
The creation of life ceases to be a complexity, a mystery, a matter of God or nature. This is an engineering problem that can be solved by finding suitable "parts" and "connections" and erecting appropriate structures.
It is no coincidence that the authors of scientific and popular articles often talk about assembly, construction, design, etc. One of the programs for creating standard biological parts, initiated by biologists and engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, is called "Biokirpich" (BioBrick). Here is how the concept of a bio-brick is defined on the website of the Bio–Bricks Foundation: "A standard element- a bio-brick is a biological element that meets the technical and legal standards defined by the Bio-Bricks Foundation. Each standard bio-brick element represents a molecular biological function encoded with the help of nucleic acids (for example, an on/off switch of gene expression) plus all the information defining and describing this element."
(If you also did not understand anything from the above office, you can read a simple, clear and short article about these very "bricks" – VM.)
And yet the dialogue continues. In the light of open attempts to include people of different professions and biographies in it, there is hope that it will go beyond the utilitarian paradigm of "benefit-harm" and will affect the broader problem of redefining the concept of life. What follows from the fact that we will move away from the model of harmonious coexistence with nature, so vividly presented in the movie "Avatar", and will consider ourselves and all elements of the environment as mechanisms that can be assembled, repaired, dismantled, turned on/off? It is precisely such questions that philosophers, sociologists, linguists and people of other humanitarian professions should answer. Discussion of philosophical aspects, and not just an attempt to anticipate practical benefits and harms, will help society to be prepared for the inevitable changes that further, albeit not very radical, advances in synthetic biology are preparing for us.
The author is a candidate of Sociological Sciences, Ph.D. of Indiana State University.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru03.06.2011