Introduction

“No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?” asked James D. Watson – one of the co-discoverers of the DNA’s helix-structure – in 2001. In this essay on responsibility and ethics, I will try to comment on this question, which could not be, though asked more than a decade ago, more recent and better fitting to the moral and ethical dilemma – if I may call it – arising from pushing the boarders of genetics and its supreme discipline – synthetic biology – further and further. In the course of doing so, we – i.e. mankind, researchers, iGem-participants, everyone – try to establish more knowledge for the future in order to open up an increasing number of possibilities for the generations to come.

This aim was also proclaimed by Craig Venter, one of the best known synthetic biologists: “We have one chance to live it [our life] and to contribute to the future of society and the future of life”. Thus, expressions such as “sustainability” and “responsibility” are inevitably linked to any research in genetics or synthetic biology. Unsurprisingly, this topic was soon taken up by society, leading to a major discussion in today’s bioethics and bio-philosophy. To my mind, there should be nobody participating in research – and might it be as small as nothing but participating in iGem – who has not made up his own, reflected opinion on the question which responsibility a researcher has and whether there should be a certain moral boarder in research or not.

For this reason, I would like to begin this essay by attempting to give a definition of central keywords in this discussion. The three most obvious are – simply by reading the title carefully – “responsibility”, “ethics” and “synthetic biology”. However, I believe that there should be a fourth keyword added, an aspect which the discussion points to: “life – and the value of life”.

Definition

Firstly, let me begin with defining the central science which is discussed: Synthetic Biology. Synthetic biology is according to syntheticbiology.org “the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems, and the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes”. Hence, synthetic biology is composed of two major aspects, the first one being the introduction of novel concepts in nature – e.g. pathways that did not exist yet, and the second one being the optimization of existing systems by genetic (or other) manipulation. Both aspects come hand in hand with ethical questions that have to be answered, and as in the process of research, life is likely to be destroyed, another general factor is always involved.

Secondly, some words about responsibility. Whenever research involves genetics and genetic manipulation, there are two aspects, researchers are responsible for. The first is, guaranteeing the security of society – or doing this at least as far as it is possible. The second aspect is the aim of the research, i.e. not conducting research for the sake of itself but for providing a chance to build a better, better-understood or more sustainable future. This thought introduces the term of “purpose” – the object of the research that should always be in the minds of those who do the project.

Thirdly, the probably very complex principle of ethics. Ethics has been a part of philosophy since the ancient Greek philosophers or even before that. It is part of the practical philosophy and literally means “the moral way of understanding” translated from the Greek ἠθική (ethici). Thus it is a discipline that judges different human behavior by moral standards.

There are roughly four different streams of moral understanding in philosophy that were most prominent (at least in bioethics) over the course of time: utilitarianism, deontological ethics, individual liberalism and communitarianism. Neither of these views is more or less correct than any other, and not belonging to one of those streams does not imply that the person concerned is acting unethically, these four approaches offer – to my mind – a useful construct of guidelines, one can use as orientation, as they are after all, not more and not less than suggestions or recommendations.

A utilitarian philosopher judges behavior in respect of their consequences, striving for actions that yield the greatest good for the largest group of people, not regarding the means taken to achieve this aim (or only regarding them, if two actions yield for the same outcome). Thus, even if people may be harmed on the way or laws may be broken, if the action leads to the best outcome for most people, it is ethically justifiable. Deontological ethics, as proposed by the German philosopher Kant, stand in a clear contrast to utilitarianism, as disregarding the outcome, there are certain actions (like killing another human being or restricting its freedom) that are under any circumstance unethical and should thus not be performed, even though by doing so one could achieve a better result for more people.

Individual liberalism and communitarianism dispute over the focus of any ethical thinking, being either the individual – thus solving ethical questions by weighing the personal rights of the individuals involved, not regarding society – or the society (community) – thus weighing possible consequences for the society as a whole in order to judge a question, thus not regarding the personal consequences of the individual entities involved.

Finally, the last concept being open for definition is “life” and its value. Whenever transforming life – which might even lead to changing an organism into another, as in the case of Craig Venter – it is important to never lose sight of the fact that life itself is the central constant in our existence and is invaluable. Even though valuing any life(-form) equally may be a noble approach, it might be practically not usable. However, preserving life when possible should be a central principle in research. Clearly it is better to cause the death of some agar plates of bacteria for saving peoples’ lives, but weighing lives for another comes with a great responsibility and should never be done inconsiderately.

Example

This paragraph should on the one hand give an example to illustrate the questions posed in the definition and on the other hand give a deeper elaboration on the issue. Probably the most prominent example in bioethics is the usage of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) in research and medical therapy. Physicians and researchers often pointed out that by the use of ESCs, serious illnesses – such as various forms of cancer – could be treated more effectively and easily, giving a higher survival chance to patients. The possibilities are imaginably great as you could simply rebuild the organs you need and thereby opening a future of longevity and health.

However, a lot of people disagree and fight for not opening up ESC research, but keeping it restricted. This attitude has multiple reasons; firstly, even if laws were eased for ESC usage, there would still be a long way to go until the techniques would be developed enough and on that way, that is the second point, many embryos would be killed for ESC-production. And even if the techniques were there, embryos would still have to be killed.

Objectively, there is no wrong or right – there are just different moral views that collide at this point. Consequently, a utilitarian would be more than willing to do ESC research, as the possible outcome justifies all means – thus, even if embryos had to be killed, it would be worth it. A deontologist on the other hand would argue that no-one is ever allowed to kill another human being, and with becoming one as an embryo’s ultimate fate, ESC research would thus include inhibition and destruction of life and is thus morally incorrect. According to liberal individualism, the rights of the embryo oppose the ones of the researchers and the patients respectively. As the embryo’s life would surely be ended, it is not justifiable to “sacrifice” them for research. A communitarian would probably propose ESC research due to the opening opportunities for society.

So is ESC research justifiable? I think, everyone has to find an answer to this question individually, regarding the beforehand mentioned principles: responsibility, life and its value and moral viewpoint.
Synthetic Biology in general goes hand in hand with the question of how far we are allowed to go, as far as manipulation of life is concerned. Isn’t life something untouchable? And in synthetic biology it is not only the destruction of life, but also the changing of life’s properties that is highly critical. Thus the question arises, whether synthetic biology is the ultimate hubris of mankind in its striving for ruling nature, or whether there is a boarder no-one should cross.

The problem – but maybe also the charm – of this topic is that no-one can ever generally define this boarder (assuming that there should be one). Nevertheless, we as researchers are obliged to ask ourselves where those boarders should be – not being able to give a general rule is not an absolution!
Talking generally is often way harder than having a specific project and discussing whether or not this project crosses any ethical border.

Discussion

As far as the purpose of our project is concerned, we have a clear objective: Introducing an easy and sustainable way of recovering elemental gold.

Every year, 40 million tons of electronic waste is thrown away, according to UNO and other sources. While less than 50 mobile phones contain more gold than one ton of gold ore, mankind strives for more and more of the latter one – thereby destroying whole landscapes. The purpose of our project is hence not only providing a sustainable way to reduce gold in electronic waste, but as a result also decreasing the need of ripping open earth’s surface on the search for more and more gold.

However, still, a manipulation of life is involved in striving for that aim and it is thus important to ask, whether the end mentioned above justifies the means required to achieve it. Hence, ethics are involved in the discussion – and expectedly, our project would probably be judged differently from different viewpoints. From a utilitarian point of view, I believe that our project is completely ethically justified. We provide society and future generations with a tool to end – or at least decrease – the destruction of our nature and of whole landscapes, digging for gold. We offer a possibility to recycle waste and gain gold out of it. Therefore, we do provide a greater good for society – thus conduct morally justified research. Furthermore, we provide a tool to create new peptides easily and effectively. Hence we share knowledge, which has since always been accounted for a greater good.

However, a very rigid deontologist might argue that by changing the nature of an organism, we would break one of the ultimate principles that underlie every ethical judging. Accepting this premise would however make any kind of biotechnological or genetic research immoral, as not only transformation, but also killing of those organisms is done in research. The questions we thus have to answer – if we evaluate the project from a deontological point of view are: what are those ultimate principles – at least for us? What are the unbreakable rules that should underlie any form of biological research? Choosing a more anthropocentric viewpoint may be useful for setting the principles for research on microbes. Hence, we suggest the following 3 principles:

I) No human being should be endangered by our research
II) No-one’s freedom should be infringed by our research
III) Multicellular life is not annihilated by our research

Neither of these three principles is infringed by our project, as we will provide any necessary kind of security. Furthermore, there are no multicellular organisms afflicted and as our project does not involve human beings directly, number I and II are preserved as well. Thus I would like to introduce a fourth principle:
IV) While conducting research, any form of life should not be destroyed senselessly
With this principle being probably the most assailable one, as “senselessly” does both, introducing a utilitarian aspect and leaving a definition of sense open. However, I think, this is the precise charm of principle IV, as it provides a compromise between utilitarianism and deontological ethics. We should never endanger or annihilate any form of life without knowing why we do so – and I think if everyone could accept this principle as ground-rule, a way more ethically justified research can be conducted.

As far as the conflict communitarianism vs. individual liberalism is concerned, I think choosing a more communitarian point of view is more reasonable, as this is, what our project concerns: society. The “individuals” involved are bacteria – and defining laws for unicellular organisms is probably very complicated. However, following principle IV introduced above, we can assure a reasonable treatment of the bacteria involved, thus also including the rights of this entity, unless one argues that every life(form) is worth exactly the same – which is, as mentioned above a noble approach, but forbids any kind of microbiological research.

By this point, the final aspect of the discussion is already being introduced: Life.
I will not deny that in the course of our project, we will destroy life. However, I think that this does not happen without any sense. The latter two sentences are – and I am fully aware of that – very questionable. Hence, I will try to explain why I advocate this opinion. As pointed out before, we have to ask ourselves, what right we have to manipulate or destroy life – even if it appears to us small, it is still life. Thus the three critical questions are:

I) Is there any justification for annihilating life?
II) Are we empowered to decide over life and death?
III) And if yes, why is human mankind eligible of this decision?

The first is the most important of these questions, as it lays the basis for the further argumentation. Everybody may answer this question differently. I think that there is no justification for annihilating human life, however, destroying other forms of life may, and only under this condition, be justifiable, if destruction of human life is prevented by doing so. If we don’t make this exception, we should not use antibiotics and leave people with parasites untreated. Furthermore, I think that “preventing human life” does not only mean saving life in the concrete danger of dying, but does also incorporate guaranteeing a good future for further generations. “Good” is open for definition, but I think that opening the possibilities that this new method of recovering gold does, is included in this “good future”. Consequently, the first question would have to be answered with yes.

The second question aims to the issue whether we set ourselves to the same level as god (of course, it is open if one exists). However, to integrate the third question in this comment, I think that the human race, as it is different from any animal by its ability to judge morally and by true self-cognition, has the ability to contemplate and decide when destroying life for saving other life is justifiable, hence answering question two with yes. However, this does not mean, that humans are the masters over life and death as the argument presented does not account for annihilating human life.

Conclusion

What does thus stand at the end of this treatise? Is synthetic biology, and in particular our project for iGem, ethically justifiable?

If this question could be answered in one sentence, what would be the use of this essay? At the end of the day, every single person – especially those being involved in research – should have reflected this topic. There is no absolute wrong and right in ethics, as already shown in the definition. Seen from a rigorous deontological point of view, our research may not appear ethically correct, but I pointed out, that we will not only keep up a high standard of biosafety to guarantee security for others, but also see the measures taken to achieve our objective more than justified regarding the possible outcome for society.

Anyone who disagrees with any of the definitions, arguments or conclusions mentioned above is more than welcome to build up his own opinion. Nevertheless, we are fully aware of what we are doing, and we are bearing the moral responsibilities arising with our research. We do not conduct research for the sake of itself, but we have the aim to introduce a method that may provide for the following generations. Hence we are convinced of not only having considered, but also meeting all moral obligations posed upon us and are proud to participate in iGem 2013.