Editorial: Ambivalences in Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology

Abstract

In this editorial, we situate the 17 chapters of the book in the context of ambivalences of synthetic biology: the uses of the label, the significance of the associated metaphors and visions, critical and public engagement, and reasons for unease. Hype and metaphors in synthetic biology may sometimes skew the debate, but they should nevertheless not be ignored: a balanced, realistic view of synthetic biology includes acknowledgment of the variety of research agendas and visions. The goals and agendas underlying engagement and evaluative activities are important aspects, too: in some cases, they are designed to increase acceptance. This can be a source of unease. Another major source of persistent unease is that synthetic biology takes to further extremes the worldview that allows humans to put life under their disposal. Is quoting grand visions for synthetic biology a good way to begin a book about its societal implications? Metaphors such as “living machines” and “digitizing life” have been ubiquitous in synthetic biology, but with ambivalent effects. For synthetic biology, on the one hand, futuristic—even biblical—visions have helped to establish the field and secure funding. On the other hand, the field needs to deliver; and vivid metaphors as well as “newness” make it an obvious subject for critical voices and regulatory initiatives. Beyond this political dimension, hype and metaphors of synthetic biology—including the label itself—have been inspiring for more nuanced evaluative efforts.