Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T22:56:27.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthetic Biology and Ethics: Past, Present, and Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2017

MATTI HÄYRY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article explores the ethical issues that have been identified in emerging technologies, from early genetic engineering to synthetic biology. The scientific advances in the field form a continuum, and some ethical considerations can be raised time and again when new developments occur. An underlying concern is the cumulative effect of scientific advances and ensuing technological innovation that can change our understanding of life and humanity.

Keywords

synthetic biologygeneticsethicsmoralityhumanitylifecloningstem cellsgenetically modified organismsgenetically modified foodprecautionhopePascal’s wagergene therapies
Type
Special Section: Synthetic Biology: Ethical and Philosophical Challenges
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 186 - 205
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. Kaebnick G, Murray TH, Parens E. Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology, 2009; available at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/our-research/selected-past-projects/ethical-issues-in-synthetic-biology-2/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

2. Biller-Andorno N, Ter Meulen R, Newson A. Synthetic biology for human health: Issues for ethical discussion and policy-making. Bioethics 2013;27:ii–iii, at ii.

3. Hunter, D. How to object to radically new technologies on the basis of justice: the case of synthetic biology. Bioethics 2013;27:426–34, at 428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Gutmann, A. The ethics of synthetic biology: guiding principles for emerging technologies. Hastings Center Report 2011;41(4):17–22, at 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Holm S. The scientific aspirations of synthetic biology and the need for analytic ethics. Ethics, Policy & Environment 2012;15:25–8, at 25.

6. See note 5, Holm 2012, at 25. The original source for this is a popular synthetic biology community website; available at http://syntheticbiology.org/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

7. Boldt J. Do we have a moral obligation to synthesize organisms to increase biodiversity? On kinship, awe, and the value of life’s diversity. Bioethics 2013;27:411–8, at 412.

8. The view that there is no distinctive element here, just a continuum, is supported by the definition referred to in note 6, which could be applied to genetic engineering in many forms that predate synthetic biology.

9. Häyry, H, Häyry, M. AIDS now. Bioethics 1987;1:339–56;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Häyry, H, Häyry, M, Karjalainen, S. Paternalism and Finnish anti-smoking policy. Social Science and Medicine 1989;28:293–7;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Häyry, H, Häyry, M. Utilitarianism, human rights and the redistribution of health through preventive medical measures. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1989;6:43–51;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Häyry, M, Häyry, H. Health care as a right, fairness and medical resources. Bioethics 1990;4:1–21;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Häyry, H, Häyry, M. Euthanasia, ethics and economics. Bioethics 1990;4:154–61;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Häyry M. Measuring the quality of life: Why, how and what? Theoretical Medicine 1991;12:97–116; Häyry H, Häyry M. Who’s like us? In: Cavalieri P, Singer P, eds. The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. London: Fourth Estate; 1993:173–82; and Häyry M. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. London: Routledge; 1994.

10. Häyry M. Categorical objections to genetic engineering: a critique. In: Dyson A, Harris J, eds. Ethics and Biotechnolo-gy. London: Routledge; 1994:202–15.

11. Chadwick R, Levitt M, Whitelegg M, Häyry H, Häyry M, Lunshof J. Cultural and Social Attitudes to Biotechnology: Analysis of the Arguments with Special Reference to the Views of Young People. Brussels: Directorate General, Science Research and Development, 1995; and Häyry M, Takala T. Genetic engineering and the risk of harm. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1998;1:61–4.

12. Häyry M. How to apply ethical principles to the biotechnological production of food: the case of bovine growth hormone. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2000;12:177–84.

13. Häyry, M, Takala, T. Biotechnology and the environment: from moral objections to ethical analyses. In: Brinkmann, K, ed. Ethics: The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 1. Bowling Green, OH: Philosophy Documentation Center; 1999:169–78.Google Scholar

14. Häyry M. But what if we feel that cloning is wrong? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2001;10:205–8; and Häyry M. Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning. Bioethics 2003;17:447–59.

15. Häyry, M. Playing God: Essays on Bioethics. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press; 2001;Google Scholar and Häyry, M. Utilitarian approaches to justice in health care. In: Rhodes, R, Battin, MP, Silvers, A, eds. Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:53–64.Google Scholar

16. Häyry M, Takala T. Genetic ignorance, moral obligations and social duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000;25:107–13; Häyry M, Takala T. Genetic information, rights, and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2001;22:403–14; Häyry M, Chadwick R, Árnason V, Árnason G, eds. The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases: European Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007; and Häyry M. Genetic engineering of human beings. In: Chadwick R, ed. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics,Vol. 4, 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2012:436–44.

17. Häyry M. European values in bioethics: why, what, and how to be used? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2003;24:199–214; Häyry M. Another look at dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2004;13:7–14; Häyry M. Precaution and solidarity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2005;14:199–206; Häyry M, Takala T. Human dignity, bioethics, and human rights. Developing World Bioethics 2005;5:225–33; Häyry M. Rationality and the Genetic Challenge: Making People Better? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010; and Häyry M. Protecting humanity: Habermas and his critics on the ethics of emerging technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2012;21:211–22.

18. Sugavan LK. Ice-minus bacteria (P. syringae) – Frost fighting Superman. Biotech Articles 2011; available at http://www.biotecharticles.com/Applications-Article/Ice-minus-Bacteria-P-Syringae-Frost-fighting-Superman-819.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

19. BBC News. GM crops: A bitter harvest. June 14, 2002; available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2045286.stm (last accessed 31 July 2016).

20. See note 19, BBC News 2002.

21. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. ISAAA Brief 46-2013: Executive Summary, 2013; available at http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

22. Falkner, R. International Cooperation against the Hegemon: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In: Falkner, R, ed. The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food Diplomacy, Trade and Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006:15–33, at 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Bruenig G, Lyons JM. The case of the Flavr Savr tomato. California Agriculture 2000;54(4):6–7.

24. Leary WE. F.D.A. approves altered tomato that will remain fresh longer. The New York Times, May 19, 1994; available at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/19/us/fda-approves-altered-tomato-that-will-remain-fresh-longer.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

25. Chokshi N. Stop bashing G.M.O foods, more than 100 Nobel Laureates say. The New York Times, June 30, 2016; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/stop-bashing-gmo-foods-more-than-100-nobel-laureates-say.html?_r=0 (last accessed 31 July 2016).

26. Thompson PB. How we got to now: Why the US and Europe went different ways with GMOs? The Conversation, November 6, 2015; available at http://theconversation.com/how-we-got-to-now-why-the-us-and-europe-went-different-ways-on-gmos-48709 (last accessed 31 July 2016).

27. Pringle P. Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto – The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest; New York: Simon & Schuster; 2005.

28. What happened to the Flavr Savr? Chemical & Engineering News, April 19, 1999; available at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/hotarticles/cenear/990419/7716bus1box3.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

29. See note 26, Thompson 2015.

30. BBC News. 1996: First GMO food goes on sale in the UK; available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm (last accessed 31 July 2016).

31. BBC News. Prince warns of GM crop “threat.” June 11, 2002; available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2038976.stm; BBC News. Prince’s GM fears are “hysteria”. 12 June 2002; available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2039959.stm (last accessed 31 July 2016).

32. BBC News. Campaigners “trampled GM crops.” June 8, 2002; available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2033298.stm (last accessed 31 July 2016).

33. Wohlers AE. Labeling of genetically modified food: closer to reality in the United States? Politics and the Life Sciences 2013;32(1):73–84.

34. Strom S. G.M.O.s in food? Vermonters will know. The New York Times, June 30, 2016; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/gmo-labels-vermont-law.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article (last accessed July 31, 2016).

35. Houck B. President Obama signs controversial bill requiring GMO labels. Eater, July 31, 2016; available at http://www.eater.com/2016/7/31/12337356/us-passes-law-gmo-labels (last accessed 31 July 2016).

36. European Commission. Genetically Modified Organisms, July 8, 2016; available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/index_en.htm (last accessed 31 July 2016).

37. Sun M. Martin Cline loses appeal on NIH grant. Science 1982;218:37.

38. Gene Therapy Clinical Trials Worldwide, February 2016; available at http://www.abedia.com/wiley/phases.php (last accessed 31 July 2016).

39. Cavazzana-Calvo M, Thrasher A, Mavilio F. The future of gene therapy. Nature 2004;427(6977):779–81.

40. Pearson S, Jia H, Kandachi K. China approves first gene therapy. Nature Biotechnology 2004;22:3–4.

41. Gene therapy for PAD approved. Human Stem Cell Institute December 7, 2011; available at http://www.dddmag.com/news/2011/12/gene-therapy-pad-approved (last accessed 31 July 2016).

42. Ylä-Herttuala S. Endgame: Glybera finally recommended for approval as the first gene therapy drug in the European Union. Molecular Therapy 2012;20:1831–2.

43. Ledford H. CRISPR: gene editing is just the beginning. Nature 2016;531:156–9.

44. Smajdor A, Cutas D. Artificial gametes. Nuffield Council of Bioethics, December 2015; available at http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Background-paper-2016-Artificial-gametes.pdf (last accessed 31 July 2016).

45. See, however, Boyce N. Trial halted after gene shows up in semen. Nature 2001;414;677.

46. Philp JC, Richie RJ, Allan JEM. Synthetic biology, the bioeconomy, and a societal quandary. Trends in Biotechnology 2013;31:269–72.

47. Wilmut A, Schnieke E, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997;385:810–3.

48. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 29th session on November 11, 1997; available at http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1881&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

49. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. National Legislation Concerning Human Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning. Paris: Division of Ethics of Science and Technology; 2004; available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001342/134277e.pdf (last accessed 31 July 2016).

50. American Medical Association endorses “pre-embryo splitting” [human cloning] as ethical. Irving News Comments, September 11, 2004; available at http://lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_42pre_embryosplitting.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

51. Shelley M. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus [orig. 1818, revised edition 1831]. Cologne: Könemann Verlagsgesell-schaft mbH; 1995.

52. Vatican: Human clones wouldn’t have same souls. The Augusta Chronicle, June 25, 1997; available at http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/06/25/tec_210414.shtml#.V7SRH0Yp3gt (last accessed 31 July 2016).

53. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, Marshall VS, et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998;282:1145–7.

54. Wu DC, Boyd AS, Wood KJ. Embryonic stem cell transplantation: potential applicability in cell replacement therapy and regenerative medicine. Frontiers in Bioscience 2007;12:4525–35.

55. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S, et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007;318:1017.

56. Habermas J. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity; 2003, at 98–9.

57. National Human Genome Research Institute. The Human Genome Project Completion: Frequently Asked Questions, October 30, 1010; available at https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

58. For a critical account, see, for example, Takala T. Genes, Sense and Sensibility: Philosophical Studies on the Ethics of Modern Biotechnologies. Turku: Reprotalo; 2000.

59. For a critical account, see, for example, note 16, Häyry et al. (eds.) 2007.

60. For a critical account, see, for example, note 17, Häyry 2010.

61. Toulmin S. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1982;25:736–50.

62. Daniel Callahan interviewed in: Boffey PM. Concern over genetics prompts a new coalition of critics. The New York Times, June 9, 1987; available at http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/09/science/concern-over-genetics-prompts-a-new-coalition-of-critics.html?pagewanted=all (last accessed 31 July 2016).

63. Schumpeter JA. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw Hill; 1939; and Schumpeter JA. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: HarperCollins; 1942.

64. Savulescu J. Master the new loom before life’s tapestry unravels at our hands. Times Higher Education, April 19, 2012; available at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=419685 (last accessed 31 July 2016).

65. Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang R-Y, Algire MA, et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 2010;329(5987):52–6.

66. Alleyne R. Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about “playing god.” The Telegraph, May 20, 2010; available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html (last accessed 31 July 2016).

67. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Washington, DC, December 2010; available at http://bioethics.gov/synthetic-biology-report (last accessed 31 July 2016).

68. Scientist: “We didn’t create life from scratch.” CNN Reports, May 21, 2010; available at http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

69. Achenbach J. Secret Harvard meeting on synthetic human genomes incites ethics debate. The Washington Post, May 13, 2016; available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/13/secret-harvard-meeting-on-synthetic-human-genomes-incites-ethics-debate/?tid=a_inl (last accessed 31 July 2016).

70. Achenbach J. After secret Harvard meeting, scientists announce plans for synthetic human genomes. The Washington Post, June 2, 2016; available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/02/after-secret-harvard-meeting-scientists-publish-proposal-to-create-synthetic-human-genomes/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).

71. Balmer A. The secretive “second world” of human synthetic biology. The Guardian, May 18, 2016; available at https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/may/18/the-secretive-second-world-of-human-synthetic-biology (last accessed 31 July 2016).

72. See note 67, Presidential Commission 2010, at 3.

73. See note 67, Presidential Commission 2010, at 4–5.

74. See note 67, Presidential Commission 2010, at 5.

75. See note 67, Presidential Commission 2010, at 3.

76. Chadwick, R. Playing God. Cogito 1989;3:186–93;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see note 10, Häyry 1994; Dabrock P. Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Systems and Synthetic Biology 2009;3:47; and Illies, C. New debates in old ethical skins. In: Engelhard, M, ed. Synthetic Biology Analysed: Tools for Discussion and Evaluation. New York: Springer; 2009:89–126, at 101–5.Google Scholar

77. Belay M, Nyambura R. GM crops won’t help African farmers. The Guardian, June 24, 2013; available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/24/gm-crops-african-farmers (last accessed 31 July 2016).

78. United Nations Environment Programme. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, § 15; available at http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163; Staff, Science and Environmental Network. Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle, 1998; available at http://www.sehn.org/wing.html; Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, 2000; available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-00-96_en.htm; United Nations.2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity – treaties; available at un.org/doc/Treaties/2000/01/20000129%2008-44%20PM/Ch_XXVII_08_ap.pdf (last accessed 31 July 2016).

79. See note 17, Häyry 2005 and Häyry 2010, at 190–3.

80. Jonas H (transl. Jonas H, Herr D). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age [orig. 1979]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1984.

81. Holm, S, Takala, T. High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some “new” arguments in bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;33;1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

82. Pascal B (transl. Levi H). Pensées [orig. 1670] and Other Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995, at 153–6; Stich SP. The recombinant DNA debate: a difficulty for Pascalian-style wagering. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1978;7:187–205; see note 11, Häyry and Takala 1998.

83. Synthetic Biology (FinSynBio), 2015; available at http://www.aka.fi/en/research-and-science-policy/academy-programmes/current-programmes/FinSynBio/ (last accessed 31 July 2016).