Team:UGent/Ethics
From 2013.igem.org
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
<h1>Sources</h1> | <h1>Sources</h1> | ||
- | + | Velasquez, M. et al.(2010), What is Ethics?, retrieved 30/08/13 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html <br> | |
Sommerville, M. (2007), Patenting life, retrieved 30/08/13 from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/patenting_life | Sommerville, M. (2007), Patenting life, retrieved 30/08/13 from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/patenting_life | ||
- | + | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
{{:Team:UGent/Templates/Footer}} | {{:Team:UGent/Templates/Footer}} | ||
{{:Team:UGent/Templates/BaseSponsor}} | {{:Team:UGent/Templates/BaseSponsor}} |
Revision as of 02:55, 4 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 do not 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 do not think progress should be halted by worrying about unforeseeable consequences. The focus should not 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).
The Synbio Lexicon - a new tool for communicating synthetic biologyWe found that there is a deep rooted, irrational disgust among a large part of the general public for things associated with genetic engineering. Several campaigns against the use of GMOs have severely damaged the image of scientific disciplines that make use of the adaptation of genes of living organisms. That’s why it’s very important to use a (new) vocabulary that does not evoke these negative feelings when communicating with the public. After all, humans are sentimental beings and education alone will not bring us a step closer to general acceptance if negative emotions keep having the upper hand.
![]() SourcesVelasquez, M. et al.(2010), What is Ethics?, retrieved 30/08/13 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.htmlSommerville, M. (2007), Patenting life, retrieved 30/08/13 from http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/patenting_life
|
![]() Tweets van @iGEM_UGent |
|
|