Synthetic Biology 2.0
by Gregor Wolbring

May 30, 2006

Today's scientific news seems to become yesterday's news… fast replaced by even more astonishing news. One field of science is chased by another at an ever-increasing speed. We are just coming to grips with Socio-Anthro-Philo-Geo-Eco-Urbo-Orbo-Develo-Securo and other issues attached to advances in information and communication technology, employing among others the field of info-ethics. Then along comes biotechnology… and the field of bio-ethics.

Despite the many unresolved issues around bio we've started to hear in the last two years of nano- (N) technology, science and ethics and its convergence with bio-, info- and cogno- (BIC) technology, science and ethics. The discourse around the convergence of N with BIC has barely started. But along comes the next field… synthetic biology (synbio) which will lead to the field of synbio-ethics.

I already hear in some circles the terms pico-technology and femto-technology!

I have decided to write about synthetic biology in this first column, as the discourse around it is changing. Synthetic biology is described on the synthetic biology community webpage to mean: (a) the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems; and (b) the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes. The very nature of synthetic biology and its envisioned applications makes it an easy target as the next field to converge with NBIC… leading to NBICS.

Generating biological structures/life forms from the bottom up by designing artificial DNA and new artificial letters for the standard four-letter DNA (A,C,G,T) -- allowing for more complex organisms than exist today -- is certainly a big part of the synthetic biology field.

One can easily envision that on the one hand new biological structures/life forms will be modified by adding products from other non-genetic fields; and that on the other these newly designed biological structures/life forms will be added to non-biological structures. Indeed, the linkage of synthetic biology with artificial life will be one of the focuses of discussion at the 10th Artificial Life X Conference to be held June 3-7, 2006 at Indiana University. It will be interesting to see future listings in the 'Registry of Standard Biological Parts.'

The Debate

The description of synthetic biology and the envisioned applications beg so many questions that answering them should keep the synbio-ethics field busy for a long time. So far, the debate on the social, ethical, safety, legal and other implications of synthetic biology is, for the most part, non-existent outside of the synthetic biology community.

The synthetic biology crowd debated in the wake of the Synthetic Biology 2.0 Conference a Community Declaration which would lead to an Asilomar type of self-regulation in regards to biosafety and biosecurity, which they rejected at the end at the conference.

Furthermore a coalition of thirty-eight international organizations called for an inclusive public debate, regulation and oversight of the rapidly advancing field of synthetic biology and rejected an Asilomar type of self regulation.

They stated in their open letter:

"Moreover, the social, economic, ethical, environmental and human rights concerns that arise from the field of synthetic biology go far beyond deterring bioterrorists and "evildoers." Issues of ownership (including intellectual property), direction and control of the science, technology, processes and products must also be thoroughly considered. Society -- especially social movements and marginalized peoples -- must be fully engaged in designing and directing dialogue on the governance of synthetic biology. Because of the potential power and scope of this field, discussions and decisions concerning these technologies must take place in an accessible way (including physically accessible) at local, national and global levels. In the absence of effective regulation it is understandable that scientists are seeking to establish best practices but the real solution is for them to join with society to demand broad public oversight and governmental action to ensure social wellbeing."

I think an open debate is useful. In recent times the bio and nano fields tried to reject regulations and stifle public debate. Both failed and lost credibility, due their usage of untenable arguments. Now it is the turn of the synthetic biology field to embrace or reject public debate and regulations.

I haven't read any argument by the synthetic biology crowd which would make it winnable for the field to avoid public debate and regulation.

The strategy to state that synthetic biology is just a tool, a technology and not a field, and that it does not pose new or unique ethical challenges is in my eyes self-defeating because: (a) no one will buy it; and (b) if the ethical concerns are not unique, and therefore shared with other fields, then the synthetic biology field/tool/technology is impacted by ethical discourse outcomes in these other fields without being part of the debate. That is very detrimental to synthetic biology.

"The technology of synthetic biology provides a new set of tools. Any ethical challenges come from the way we use the tools and not from the tools themselves," concludes a recent paper. "The issues raised by synthetic biology technology are similar [to genetically modified crops], and any ethical concerns unique to this technology are not foreseen."

Synthetic Biology 3.0 will take place in Zurich, Switzerland on June 24-27, 2007.

The Choice is Yours

Now is a good time to get involved in the discourse around the vision and envisioned applications and implications of the field of synthetic biology.

REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT - FINAL VERSION TO FOLLOW OPEN COMMENT PERIOD ENDING JUNE 7, 2006

As this is my first column for the readers of Innovation Watch, I would like to say that I cherish your comments, suggestions, and any information you want to send my way. I hope my columns will be of use to you.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website.

©Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2006. Reprinted with permission.