Jump to comment:

• Opening Biology: A response to Douglas and Savulescu
  Nicholas G. Evans
  Published on: 18 May 2017

• Published on: 18 May 2017

  Opening Biology: A response to Douglas and Savulescu

  • Nicholas G. Evans, PhD Candidate

  In their recent piece, "Synthetic Biology and the Ethics of Knowledge," Thomas Douglas and Julian Savulescu argued for an "ethics of knowledge," in which bioethicists engage with the ethical issues surrounding the pursuit and dissemination of scientific knowledge.1 Their focus, as the title suggests, is the rapidly expanding field of synthetic biology.

  While I agree with the general claim made by Douglas and Sa...

  Show More

  In their recent piece, "Synthetic Biology and the Ethics of Knowledge," Thomas Douglas and Julian Savulescu argued for an "ethics of knowledge," in which bioethicists engage with the ethical issues surrounding the pursuit and dissemination of scientific knowledge.1 Their focus, as the title suggests, is the rapidly expanding field of synthetic biology.

  While I agree with the general claim made by Douglas and Savulescu, I might suggest that they underestimate the nature of the field of synthetic biology, and precisely what it might do to the life sciences in general. In this, they undersell themselves in what precisely this emerging field demands of the bioethics--and indeed the academic community--in general.

  An ethics of knowledge, particularly of what research should or should not occur for moral reasons, is so important because of the way in which the life sciences is being radically deskilled. That is, the science is not only becoming ubiquitous within the traditional academic and research communities, but within a community of enthusiastic amateurs who are only beginning to manifest their genius at synthetic biology. Websites such as DIYBio,2 or the Personal Genome Project,3 are rapidly breaking down the walls between the professional and the "expert amateur" scientist.

  Douglas and Savulescu noted in their initial thought experiment that:

  [An old college friend has] discovered a new, cheap way to produce synthetic viruses using out-of- date bench top DNA synthesisers that are now ubiquitous, even in developing countries... [but] every major military and terrorist group in the world has access to these obsolete synthesisers. It would take only one malevolent agent and one such machine to produce enough vaccine-resistant smallpox virions to devastate humanity.

  While the authors date this 2020, the truth is that 2020 is an optimistic assessment. "Garage," "Open Source," or "DIY" Biologists have already constructed a low-budget PCR thermocycler, the LavaAmp.4 While they are still a ways away from the synthesis of life, we ought not to underestimate the potential these groups possess to alter the way the life sciences is pursued.

  With this in mind, ethical analysis of the pursuit of research needs to advance and engage not just with the professional, but with the amateur (and in this sense, amateur is far from a pejorative term) community in terms of an ethics of knowledge. This requires greater public engagement by bioethicists and life scientists with the growing communities all over the world who may one day become a significant player in synthetic biology.

  An ethics of knowledge must not only aim to encompass professional guidance and ethics, but practical ethics for humanity at large. This is no small feat. As Douglas and Savulescu argue, it is often--and unconvincingly--argued that knowledge is separated from its use. Challenging and providing an alternative to this accepted wisdom will require not only serious academic endeavour, but positive and constructive public engagement regarding the appropriate uses of knowledge, and how best to avoid, mitigate or manage the harms that may result. Without engagement with the relevant communities, we risk alienating them, which may cause serious setbacks or even exacerbate the harms caused by the misuse of synthetic biology.

  Moreover, we need to seriously reexamine the ways in which the advances in one area affect other areas of research. DIY biology may someday come to pose a serious public health hazard, and the sooner we are prepared for that eventuality, the better. As it is, the folks engaged with DIY biology are already hard at work on these problems. But there is always room for more engagement with the field. This in turn requires a more sustained engagement by bioethicists with the field of public health, a field which is still underdeveloped.

  Conflict of Interest:

  None declared

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top