Team:UGent/Ethics
From 2013.igem.org
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
<li><A HREF="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UGent/Ethics/Prof dr Geert De Jaeger" target="_blank">Prof. dr. Geert De Jaeger</A></li> | <li><A HREF="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UGent/Ethics/Prof dr Geert De Jaeger" target="_blank">Prof. dr. Geert De Jaeger</A></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
- | <h1> | + | <h1>What we take home</h1> |
+ | <p>It is clear that synthetic biology will lead to tons of new applications in the near future and that it is impossible to foresee all the long-term consequences. Does this mean we should act out of a precautionary principle and not proceed at all? No! We opt, just like the professionals we interviewed, for a more proactionary approach and hope Europe will soon follow this philosophy. We don’t think progress should be halted by worrying about unforeseeable consequences. The focus shouldn’t be on eliminating all risks, as zero-risk is utopian (cfr. Prof. Wim Soetaert). Note that we absolutely agree that foreseeable consequences should be thoroughly evaluated and that a cost-benefit analysis should be made (cfr. Prof. Filip Buekens).</p> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
{{:Team:UGent/Templates/Footer}} | {{:Team:UGent/Templates/Footer}} | ||
{{:Team:UGent/Templates/BaseSponsor}} | {{:Team:UGent/Templates/BaseSponsor}} |
Revision as of 13:33, 2 October 2013
Ethics in synthetic biology
It is not surprising that synthetic biology, the science which adapts and designs living organisms with myriad and undefined applications, has a broad ethical dimension. An ethical dimension … ethical questions … ethics … what on earth? Weren’t we talking exact science here?
![]()
The first question that springs to mind when considering new technologies is about the still unknown, potentially harmful consequences. A synthetic organism may have negative effects on the environment or human beings. Such concerns fall under biosafety. Is it acceptable to create something which we don’t know the long-term consequences of? Apart from biosafety, synthetic biology raises also biosecurity concerns, as products of synthetic biology could potentially be used for acts of bioterrorism.
![]()
One of the goals of synthetic biology is the creation of new organisms with functions that are not found in nature. Also the creation of minimal organisms from the ground up is an application of synthetic biology. Is the creation of novel entities like microorganisms creating life or merely building a biological machine? Is creating life acceptable? Could this change our view on the concept of life or alter our relationship with other living creatures?
What we take homeIt is clear that synthetic biology will lead to tons of new applications in the near future and that it is impossible to foresee all the long-term consequences. Does this mean we should act out of a precautionary principle and not proceed at all? No! We opt, just like the professionals we interviewed, for a more proactionary approach and hope Europe will soon follow this philosophy. We don’t think progress should be halted by worrying about unforeseeable consequences. The focus shouldn’t be on eliminating all risks, as zero-risk is utopian (cfr. Prof. Wim Soetaert). Note that we absolutely agree that foreseeable consequences should be thoroughly evaluated and that a cost-benefit analysis should be made (cfr. Prof. Filip Buekens).
|
![]() Tweets van @iGEM_UGent |
|
|