Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The New Worlds of Synthetic Biology—Synopsis

A diverse and dynamic field that should not be judged as a whole but rather by its specific new features.

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Synthetic Biology Analysed

Part of the book series: Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment ((ETHICSSCI,volume 44))

Abstract

Synthetic biology is a young and heterogeneous field that is constantly on the move. This makes societal evaluation of synthetic biology a challenging task and prone to misunderstandings. Confusions arise not only on the level of what part of synthetic biology the discussion is on, but also on the level of the underlying concepts in use: concepts, for example, of life or artificiality. Instead of directly reviewing the field as a whole, in the first step we therefore focus on characteristic features of synthetic biology that are relevant to the societal discussion. Some of these features apply only to parts of synthetic biology, whereas others might be relevant for synthetic biology as a whole. In the next step we evaluate these new features with respect to the different areas of synthetic biology: do we have the right words and categories to talk about these new features? In the third step we scrutinize traditional concepts like “life” and “artificiality” with regard to their discriminatory power. Lastly, we utilize this refined view for ethical evaluation, risk assessment, analysis of public perception and legal evaluation. This approach will help to differentiate the discussion on synthetic biology. By this we will come to terms with the societal impact of synthetic biology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “create” is used by a number of protagonists of the field, as well as “make’’, “redesign’’, “construct’’. We discuss the normative level of these expressions in Chap. 5 of this book.

  2. 2.

    E.g. Craig Venter's ethics group (Cho et al. 1999); SynBerc Human Practices (Rabinow and Bennett 2009).

  3. 3.

    On the conference “Synthetic Biology 2.0: The Second International Meeting on Synthetic Biology May 20−22, 2006 at UC Berkeley” a biosecurity resolution was discussed: http://syntheticbiology.org/SB2.0/Biosecurity_resolutions.html. Accessed 18 July 2015. At the end no action on self-governance was taken.

  4. 4.

    Therefore, ethicists and sociologists have soon had to reflect their roles within the emerging technology (Rabinow and Bennett 2009, 2012; Calvert and Martin 2009). This is a phenomenon known from other science and technology fields characterised by such early concomitant research (cf. nanotechnology, see Schummer 2011). Synthetic biology has also become a case study object for secondary research about policy advice.

  5. 5.

    For an exception, see Rabinow and Bennett (2009).

  6. 6.

    “The First International Meeting on Synthetic Biology’’ 10.-12.6.2004 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge (MIT), MA, USA, http://syntheticbiology.org/Synthetic_Biology_1.0.html (accessed on 14 May 2013). This was when the ideas about how to revolutionize the use of open source and engineering principles in genetic engineering Endy (2005) were first presented by their protagonists. Other research lines as for example protocell research that now are commonly included under the synthetic biology umbrella term have their own roots.

  7. 7.

    The provided information is based on a non-public expertise conducted by Margret Engelhard and Kristin Hagen for the German Parliament. The expertise (duration: 2/2012–12/2012) is based on qualitative interviews with leading scientists from within synthetic biology, scientists that research on synthetic biology and active artists. Main content of the interviews were the current status of synthetic biology, its framing (also in comparison to genetic engineering), on xenobiology and protocell research, the individual research agendas, the role of DIY-biology and questions on potential risks.

  8. 8.

    Results interviews see FN above and Table 3.1, Chap. 3.

  9. 9.

    This was stated on one strategy of the conference in the welcome address of Drew Endy at the “SB5.0: the Fifth International Meeting on Synthetic Biology” held at the Stanford University, Stanford, California USA, June 15–17, 2011.

  10. 10.

    Results interviews, see FN 7.

  11. 11.

    The Poverty of Historicism Boston: Beacon Press (1957), p. 21.

  12. 12.

    For reviews and recent data, see Ancillotti and Eriksson (in production 2016, about media coverage in Italy and Sweden) and Seitz (in production 2016, about media coverage in Germany).

  13. 13.

    A definition of CMO is provided in Budisa (2014).

References

  • Acevedo-Rocha CG, Budisa N (2011) On the road towards chemically modified organisms endowed with a genetic firewall. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 50:6960–6962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBSRC Report (2008) Balmer A, Martin P 2008. Synthetic biology. Social and ethical challenges. Institute for Science and Society. University of Nottingham, <http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads///pdf/synthetic_biology_social_ethical_challenges.pdf, Accessed 18. July 2015

  • Berg P, Mertz JE (2010) Personal reflections on the origins and emergence of recombinant DNA technology. Genetics 184:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billerbeck S, Härle J, Panke S (2013) The good of two worlds: increasing complexity in cell-free systems. Curr Opin Biotechnol. [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldt J, Müller O (2008) Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nat Biotechnol 26:387–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budisa N (2014) Xenobiology, New-to-Nature Synthetic Cells and Genetic Firewall. Curr Org Chem 18:936–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budisa N, Kubyshkin V, Schulze-Makuch D (2014) Fluorine-rich planetary environments as possible habitats for life. Life: open access J 4(3):374–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J, Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 10:201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, L. (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra, A, de Vriend H (eds), Synthetic biology the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, New York, pp 5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan A (2010) The end of vitalism. Nature 465:423

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD, secretariat of the convention on biological diversity (2015). Synthetic biology, Montreal, Technical series no. 82, p 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL, McGee D and the Ethics of Genomics Group (1999) Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome, Science, 289:2087–2090

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabrock P (2009) Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Syst Synth Biol 3:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lorenzo V, Danchin A (2008) Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep 9:822–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deplazes A (2009) Piecing together a puzzle. An exposition of synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 10:428–432. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), acatech (Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften), Leopoldina (Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften) (2009) Synthetische Biologie/Synthetic biology. <http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2009/stellungnahme_synthetische_biologie.pdf>. Accessed 18 July 2015

  • Eason RE (2012) Synthetic biology already has a model to follow. Ethics, Policy and Environ 15(1):21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECNH Report (2010) Report of the federal ethics committee on non-human Biotechnology. Synthetic biology—ethical considerations. www.ekah.admin.ch. Accessed 14 Nov 2014

  • Elowitz M, Lim WA (2010) Build life to understand it. Nature 468:889–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European group on ethics in science and new technologies to the European commission (EGE) (2009) Ethics of synthetic biology: opinion no 25, European commission, Luxemburg. <http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/opinion25_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2013

  • Friends of the earth, CTA and ECT (2012) The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology, <http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biology Accessed 19. July. 2015

  • ETC group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. <http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/602/01/synbioreportweb.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2013

  • Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N, Quintanilha A, Rammer A, Revuelta G, Stoneman P, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010 winds of change? Technical report. European commission, brussels. <https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_archive/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf Accessed 19. July 2015

  • Hansson SO (1996) Decision making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauskeller C (2009) Toward a critical evaluation of protocell research In: Bedau M, Parke E (eds) The ethics of protocells. moral and social implications of creating life in the laboratory. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 590–641

    Google Scholar 

  • IRGC (International risk governance council) (2010) Guidelines for the appropriate risk governance of synthetic biology < http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/irgc_SB_final_07jan_web.pdf>. Accessed 19 July 2015

  • Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2012) A programmable dual-RNA—guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly PB, Laurent B, Marris C, Robinson D (2011) Biologie de synthèse: conditions d’un dialogue avec la société. Etude pour le Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche (Sciences et Société)(Convention n11 G 603). <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/sshm/research/csynbi-PDFs/EtudebiosynthrapportFinal.pdf > . Accessed 19 July 2015

  • Jonas H (1987) Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaebnick GE (2009) Should moral objections to synthetic biology affect public policy? Nat Biotechnol 27:1106–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaebnick GE, Gusmano MK, and Murray TH (2014) The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Next Steps and Prior Questions, Synthetic Future: Can We Create What We Want Out of Synthetic Biology?, special report, Hastings Center Report 44, no. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger N (2012) Synthetic biology: taking a look at a field in the making. Public Understanding of Science 21:130–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Luisi PL, Ferri F, Stano P (2006) Approaches to semi-synthetic minimal cells: a review. Naturwissenschaften 93:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makarova KS, Haft DH, Barrangou R, Brouns SJJ, Charpentier E, Horvath P et al (2011) Evolution and classification of the CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:467–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansy SS, Schrum JP, Krishnamurthy M, Tobé S, Treco DA, Szostak JW (2008) Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell. Nature 454:122–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marliere P (2009) The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world. Syst Synth Biol 3:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller A (2004) Lasst uns Menschen machen!, Stuttgart Kohlhammer

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Powell A, Davies JF, Calvert J (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 20:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Engelhard M, Hagen K, Jørgensen RB, Rehbinder E, Schnieke A et al (2009) The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. A differentiated landscape of public perceptions of pharming. EMBO Rep 10:1069–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2009) Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on US public perceptions of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PCSBI (Presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues) (2010) New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. PCSBI, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Pei L, Schmidt M, Wei W (2011) Synthetic biology: An emerging research field in China. Biotechnol Adv 29:804–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purnick PEM, Weiss R (2009) The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10:410–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow P, Bennett G (2009) Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009. Syst Synth Biol 3:99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels J (1986) The end of life. Euthanasia and morality, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • RCUK (Research councils UK), UK synthetic biology roadmap coordination group (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK. Technology strategy board, Swindon. <http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/Publications/reports/Pages/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.aspx. Accessed 25.04.2013

  • Rodbeen R, van Hest JCM (2009) Synthetic cells and organelles: compartmentalization strategies. BioEssays 31:1299–1308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A, Torgersen H, Kelle A, Deplazes A, Biller-Andorno N (2009) A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3:3–7. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9034-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2011) Das Gotteshandwerk. Die künstliche Herstellung von Leben im Labor, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep 10:S18–S22. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait J, Barker G (2011) Global food security and the governance of modern biotechnologies. EMBO Rep 12:763–768. doi:10.1038/embor.2011.135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgersen H (2009) Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol 3:9–17. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9030-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wochner A, Attwater J, Holliger P (2011) Ribozyme-catalyzed transcription of an active ribozyme. Science 332:209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Wilhelmstraße 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Margret Engelhard & Kristin Hagen

  2. Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Biologie, Karl-Von-Frisch-Str. 8, 35032, Marburg, Germany

    Michael Bölker

  3. Department of Chemistry, TU Berlin, Müller-Breslau-Straße 10, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Nediljko Budisa

  4. Chair of Philosophy 2, Otto Friedrich University, 96045, Bamberg, Germany

    Christian Illies

  5. Fundación BBVA, Paseo de Recoletos, 10, 28001, Madrid, Spain

    Rafael Pardo-Avellaneda

  6. Zentrum Für Literatur- Und Kulturforschung, Schützenstraße 18, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Georg Toepfer

  7. Universität Bremen, Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, 28353, Bremen, Germany

    Gerd Winter

Authors
  1. Margret Engelhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Bölker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nediljko Budisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristin Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Illies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rafael Pardo-Avellaneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Georg Toepfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerd Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margret Engelhard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. & Innovation Assessment GmbH, EA European Academy of Technology, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany

    Margret Engelhard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Engelhard, M. et al. (2016). The New Worlds of Synthetic Biology—Synopsis. In: Engelhard, M. (eds) Synthetic Biology Analysed. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25145-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25145-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25143-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25145-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation