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 boarder.