Article Text
Abstract
Synthetic biologists aim to generate biological organisms according to rational design principles. Their work may have many beneficial applications, but it also raises potentially serious ethical concerns. In this article, we consider what attention the discipline demands from bioethicists. We argue that the most important issue for ethicists to examine is the risk that knowledge from synthetic biology will be misused, for example, in biological terrorism or warfare. To adequately address this concern, bioethics will need to broaden its scope, contemplating not just the means by which scientific knowledge is produced, but also what kinds of knowledge should be sought and disseminated.
- synthetic biology
- synthetic genes
- genetic engineering
- harm minimisation
- moral status
- synthetic biology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors received funding from the University of Oxford, Christ Church, and the Wellcome Trust.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Whose ethics of knowledge? Taking the next step in evaluating knowledge in synthetic biology: a response to Douglas and Savulescu
- The ethics of biosafety considerations in gain-of-function research resulting in the creation of potential pandemic pathogens
- Science for evil: the scientist's dilemma
- A qualified endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, based on two widely shared beliefs about the brain-diseased patients such research might benefit
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- Great expectations—ethics, avian flu and the value of progress
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Going high and low: on pluralism and neutrality in human embryology policy-making
- The moral value of induced pluripotent stem cells: a Japanese bioethics perspective on human embryo research
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience