Team:KU Leuven/Human Practices/Ethics/Debate

The debate is part of our new developed approach, which is bottom-up structured.
The aim of the debate was to focus on ethical issues surrounding synthetic biology in a way which is accessible to students, academics, but also non-scientists.

The First question: How do the panel members evaluate our project? It was considered an interesting project that provides an innovative way helping to solve the concern of feeding in a growing world population with a limited amount of space. It is an ecologically responsible way to boost the production of crops per Ha, though Hermes Sanctorum mentioned that the effects on the environment from implementing this genetically engineered machine should be well studied and also the opinion of the society has to be respected.
Regarding the question if this project is strictly speaking an example of synthetic biology, René Custers responded that synthetic biology is a rather undefined term. In this project rather ‘traditional’ genetic engineering is used. The modeling aspect and the use of multiple heterologous genes resulting in a ‘new’ bacteria however make this project a possible application of synthetic biology.

There is always risk involved with the introduction of new technologies. A risk analysis is required, in which we have to look at the risk and multiply it with the damage done. Another factor is the timeframe in which this damage will last. The Cartagena protocol is a protocol for genetically engineered organisms that defines that the risk has to be almost zero, making it hard for new technologies to be introduced in Europe. This also makes it difficult for small companies to invest in these technologies leaving only big multinationals to get past this testing phase. Part of the synthetic biology will fall under the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). René Custer said that on the other hand when new parts are made that do not currently exist in nature performing a risk analysis will be a lot harder. For instance when making proteins consisting of amino acids not residing in nature or creating new organisms that replicate themselves.
We can also look at the methods used in agriculture and cattle-breeding in the past where such a debate was never held before the technology was introduced. Some examples are the ‘Belgian blue’, irradiation of crops and the selection of ‘meat chickens’. Also in chemical industry thousands of non-natural compounds are produced and the increased prevalence of certain cancers is associated with these chemicals. At this instant a total restriction of synthetic biology is not necessary. We should be vigilant however when new applications are developed that history does not repeat itself.
Anneleen Vandeplas also mentioned that the opinion of the consumer also seems to be just one reason against the introduction on the market of GMO’s. Much more important is the fact that this technology is better developed in America and that Europe protects its own market by prohibiting import of these cheaper modified crops.

Synthetic biology might, in the wrong hands, lead to the development of weapons. Yet knowledge of the subject is required as is also the case with nuclear or chemical weaponry. In the case of synthetic biology, it might even be easier if one wishes to do harm to use a much simpler different method. Right now when submitting a research proposal the dual-use agreement is obligatory and also questions have to be answered regarding the purpose of the project and its potential misuse.

Opening the box of Pandora is not seen as a good concept. Every innovation can be seen as a box of Pandora as there is always a risk associated with them. To keep the box closed for this reason would halt innovation. An extra ethical question might arise according to Johan De Tavernier if this technique shifts from bacteria to higher animals. Then the integrity of the animal itself becomes a factor. Then a cost-benefit analysis has to be done where the suffering of the animal is added to the equation before the project is started. The goal has to justify the means as it were.

Is dual use a valid reason to halt synthetic biology?

There are risks associated with synthetic biology. Is dual use a valid reason as every advancement in technology also tends to increase its potential for destruction? Shouldn’t we look at the time it takes to repair when something goes wrong? For instance in case of a nuclear disaster it will take thousands of years to revert to its normal state. Influencing a ecosystem might also change it for many generations.
These risks are hard to assess for synthetic biology. A case to case view is necessary. Indeed time could be an extra factor to assess the risk of a project. If new life is formed that is very dangerous but it dies in an instant out of the test tube, one is more inclined to allow this project then if these life forms would survive longer. Johan De Tavernier suggests that the four criteria of plagiarism of the KU Leuven could be used to assess the risk: seriousness, scale, grade and impact.

Open source

Open source makes it possible for scientists to build upon previous research, but it might also make it easier accessible for malicious applications.
Much like open source, the patent system requires the inventor to put the data online for anyone to read. If one were to use this data, consent of the patent holder is required. The information is in both systems freely accessible if one wishes to use it with bad intent. Another possibility is to keep it entirely secret, an example of this is the recipe of coca-cola.

The difference between chemistry, nanobiology and synthetic biology

When we look at the risk analysis the difference between chemistry, nanobiology and synthetic biology is that synthetic biology creates organism that replicate themselves which is harder to control if they would escape their predetermined environment.
The organisms are capable of replicating but will be made dependant of a certain compound that is not found outside their habitat. Thus if they escape this they will not be able to survive.

Governmental control

Few members of parliament are informed in the subject of synthetic biology. Is it sound to let them make decisions concerning this topic?
The members of parliament are a representation of the population in Belgium. If we look at the population more than 80% does not know what synthetic biology means. To resolve this problem the parliament invites scientists to inform them about the subject.

Responsibility after disasters

If this iGEM team finds an industrial partner to bring this bacteria on the market and after a while a problem arises. Who is responsible for the damage caused? The team, the company...?
Normally the company who brings the product on the market will be held responsible. There is a European regulation concerning environmental liability.

After these questions all those present at the debate were invited to the reception to further discuss the topic and the symposium in smaller groups with some drinks (beer sponsored by AB-Inbev Belgium) and a bite.
We would like to thank our panel members for enabling us to hold this interesting debate and our moderator Ben Vanheukelom for guiding the conversation. We would also like to thank all the interested people present at the debate and also the iGEM team of UGent for attending the debate.