Team:UNIK Copenhagen/OpenSource

Ethical reflections on synthetic biology and the iGEM competition

An article about open source by Kristoffer Nielsen

Methodological considerations when thinking through synthetic biology
In the discipline of ethics, the use of intuitions is widespread. Intuitions guide our judgments in cases and thought experiments. However there is reason to be critical of this method and especially when thinking through the ethical concerns related to synthetic biology. The contention is that our ethical intuitions - our gut feelings - were developed in us in prehistorically times when human beings lived together in small groups and not in the complex societies of today’s world. Therefore, we have clear-cut intuitions about whether it is ok to stab the person next to you, but not so much when deciding what to think about complicated scientific developments.

Related to this human beings tend to have what has been called a conservative bias. Without giving further rational reasons, we just tend to prefer the default state and generally dislike change. We should be aware of such cognitive biases when thinking through the ethics of synthetic biology and we should generally be critical of our immediate gut feelings although they can be guidelines in moral matters of a simpler nature.

Furthermore, we should be cautious about the usability of the types of argument we can call slippery slope and worst-case scenario. Instead of debating synthetic biology based on some far out examples of what could happen in the worst instance, we should evaluate the realistic consequences of emerging technologies. Slippery slope arguments generally have limited usability as the chain of events leading to the purported bad effects needs to be shown if they are to carry any weight.

Nature-view and the distinction between life and machine
If we view synthetic biology as a discipline, where nature is treated as “building blocks” there is a worry that progress in this discipline might over time alter our perception of nature. However, this is a slippery slope kind of argument and for the argument to carry any weight the chain of events leading to an altered perception of nature needs to be demonstrated. Pointing to the mere possibility does not take us very far. In addition, our view of nature might be something very worthy of critical examination.

Concerning our view of nature one could argue that the trend right now is actually in the opposite direction: As natural areas become more and more scarce in the world, they are also valued more. We should also take note of the fact that human beings have been making changes in nature for thousands of years, for instance by farming land. This has not diminished our enjoyment of nature, so the concern over our nature view could prove to be unfounded.

There is a related concern. When we start building biological machines might we risk washing away the boundaries between life and machine? How do we define a non-arbitrary line between natural life and the life we create in a laboratory?

One answer is that finding such a line is not that big of a concern, not morally at least. Contemporary ethics generally holds that sentient life, and not life as such, is of moral importance. Therefore, humans and nonhuman animals matter morally because they are conscious beings, capable of feeling pain and pleasure. Trees and bacteria on the other hand do not have the same moral standing as they lack consciousness. They are alive, but they are not aware of the world, so our actions cannot meaningfully be said to hurt them in a moral sense.

Therefore, the fact that we are able to create life is, at least in one sense, not that important ethically. We already create life by planting trees and breeding animals, the question of moral importance is whether the life we create is sentient.

Open source and intellectual property
The open source nature of the synthetic biology community might have the advantage of “pushing the peanut forward” faster. When scientists don't have to construct all the building materials needed for their particular research from scratch progress should, other things being equal, develop faster.

However, it is an interesting question whether open source sharing of knowledge in general promotes progress. We have a patenting structure in place in our society now and the justification usually given for such a structure is that it gives scientists incentives to work hard and be creative so that they can then patent the fruits of their labor and earn money.

There are some ethical problems related to patenting. We can distinguish between a utilitarian analysis and a rights-oriented analysis.

The utilitarian argument in favor of our current patenting system is precisely the economic incentives: Scientists want to make money, so they work hard leading to new developments to the benefit of all of society. We would have a utilitarian counterargument to this line of thought, if it can be shown that progress to the benefit of all of society is in fact not best achieved by putting in place patenting systems. It is not hard to see that patenting offers incentives, but puts restrictions on creativity.

Therefore, if an open source system or a version thereof does not kill the incentive to be creative this would be a superior system, as it would not have the disadvantage of restricting creativity. In the end, it is a complicated empirical question whether patenting does more good (incentives) than bad (restrictions).

The other justification for patenting one might give is based on the idea of giving what is due to the rightful owner of a given invention and stems from the philosophy of John Locke. The idea here is that I am always entitled to the fruits of my labor. If I do work on some project, including intellectual work, I can be said to be entitled to the result. This gives us a clear argument in favor of patenting laws. However, it is not hard to show why this framework has some serious drawbacks compared to the utilitarian framework. To see why, we can consider the example of the company Myriad Genetics who patented two breast cancer genes in the 90's and then demanded large sums of money to test people. Furthermore, they worked hard to prevent hospitals to test for these genes. Even if Myriad Genes can be said to be the “owner” of these genes in some sense as they did an amount of work to discover them, it seems like other ethical considerations trump this ownership and we are inclined to say that they acted unethically. Many would argue that a concern for the good of human beings trump private ownership. Maybe that is why it is most common to use the utilitarian concern for good consequences as a justification for patenting laws rather than pointing to some abstract rights.

However, the Lockean framework might even prove unsatisfying for other reasons. Can anyone really be said to own the fruit of one’s own labor? Some would argue that knowledge is a social product and whatever I am able to create, I am only able to because of the circumstances under which I was raised, for instance my society. This view has an intuitive appeal. Say I was the inventor of some advanced computer software. Would I have been able to create this software if, instead of living in Denmark, I had been born in a small village in Uganda? Surely not. Therefore, the circumstances under which I became the inventor were arbitrary and in some sense, not really something I can claim ownership of. Another way to express this idea is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. We are adding to a pool of knowledge that was already there and whatever we are able to create, it is only possible because of the work of others.

Open source and bio (t)error
Sometimes when new scientific fields emerge, they are accused of bringing apocalypse closer. This can be characterized as a “doomsday” argument against synthetic biology. The interesting question in this context is: If we accept the premise that the open source nature of synthetic biology pushes progress forward faster, might we also have to accept the criticism that synthetic biology increases the risks of bio terror and bio error. When recipes and ingredients are widely available, the risks might be higher.

However, biological weapons are already available so it seems unclear in exactly what sense synthetic biology adds to the danger of biological terror. Bio terror is a risk that is already there and in no way unique to this field.

Concerning the risk of bio error it is important to point out that there are other risks involved in not pursuing synthetic biology. Some scientists claim that synthetic biology has the potential to help us in curing various diseases more effectively. Others are working on creating sustainable energy sources which, in the light of global warming, could be an important solution seeing as politicians and populations are failing to take the required precautions to avoid climate catastrophe.

In sum, the risks should be taken seriously and safety measures should be taken, but risks should be weighed against the potential benefits. Furthermore, we should ask whether the possible risks are not merely possible, but also realistic in order to avoid having far out doomsday arguments lead the debate off course. If synthetic biology really has the potential to provide alternative energy sources so as to help us avoid climate catastrophe such a benefit might be big enough to outweigh a large number of potential risks.