TWO CONCERNS ABOUT SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY TOM DOUGLAS AND JULIAN SAVULESCU OXFORD UEHIRO CENTRE FOR...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of TWO CONCERNS ABOUT SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY TOM DOUGLAS AND JULIAN SAVULESCU OXFORD UEHIRO CENTRE FOR...
TWO CONCERNS ABOUT SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
TOM DOUGLAS AND JULIAN SAVULESCU
OXFORD UEHIRO CENTRE FOR PRACTICAL ETHICSUNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
Cello et al. 2002de novo synthesis of poliovirus
Venter proposalminimal bacterial
chassis
competing definitions
synthetic biology = de novo synthesis of biological organisms/components
broaddefinition
narrowdefinition
benefits
medical applications (diagnostics and therapeutics)
environmental applications (biofuels, biosensors, bioremediation)
industrial applications
ContextEthical issues no different to:
genetic engineering, transgenesis, chimerasmachine-mind interfaces
artificial reproduction, eg cloning
Moral landscape: ethical concerns
1. synthetic biology poses a high risk of malevolent use – precautionary principle
2. synthetic biology will undermine or fail to respect the moral status of living things – discrimination, inequality, etc
3. synthetic biology will result in accidental harm
4. synthetic biology will lead to the enhancement of human beings – moral imperative to enhance human beings
5. “Playing God”/unnatural/dignity of life/commodification of life objs
Will focus on 1 and 2 as these are most serious and common obj
our claims
on their most plausible interpretations, these two concerns can be understood as variants of a common concern about promoting
future wrongdoing
the most common strategy for dissolving this concern (scientific isolationism) fails
the first concern – possible malevolent use
Cello et al. 2002de novo synthesis of poliovirus
Tumpey et al. 2005Reconstruction of 1918 Spanish influenza virus
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
XX
the second concern – undermining the moral status of living things
Cho, Magnus, Caplan & McGee (1999):
creation of beings between living
things & machines
acceptance of reductionist
account of life
no longer ascribe “special status” to
life
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
MO
RAL
STAT
US
PERSONS: human rights
interestsintrinsic value
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS:?? rights
? interests? intrinsic value
MACHINES:no rights or interests
instrumental value only
PRODUCTS OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
???
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
a reformulation of the second concern
synthetic beings assigned great moral status
human/animal interests sacrificed
for the sake of synthetic beings
humans/animals harmed
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
humans/animals assigned lesser
moral status (on some theories)
two possibilities
we correctly assign great moral status to synthetic beings
→ humans/animals get permissibly harmed
we incorrectly assign great moral status to synthetic beings
→ humans/animals get wrongly harmed
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
unifying the two concerns
CONCERN ONE:synthetic agents used in
malevolent ways
CONCERN TWO:human/animal interests get
wrongly sacrificed for the sake of synthetic beings (or the reverse)
pursuing research in synthetic biology brings about future
wrongdoing
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
scientific isolationism – a way of dissolving the concern?
ethics of research
ethics of technology
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
scientific freedom
the claimscientists enjoy a right to absolute freedom of enquiry
but...scientists should not engage in all research that they have a right to engage in
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
argument one – the intrinsic value of knowledge
the claimscientific inquiry is justified by the intrinsic value of the knowledge it produces
but...this assumes that the value of knowledge trumps other moral value
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
argument two – the gunmaker’s defence
the claima scientist is not responsible for malevolent uses of her research
but...wrongs for which we are not responsible can still be relevant to the ethical assessment of our conduct
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
argument three – “it’s futile”
the claimindividual scientists/policymakers can’t significantly affect the rate of scientific progress
but...a small delay might enable better regulation
and...small initial changes may have large knock-on effects
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
argument four – uncertainty
the claimwe can’t predict the future, so any principle which requires us to do so is unworkable
but...it may well be possible to identify predictors of malevolent use – we haven’t even tried
1st concern 2nd concern unifying the concerns scientific isolationism
conclusions
the two concerns – about malevolent use and about undermining moral status – can be understood as variants of a moral general concern about bringing about wrongdoing
the most popular way of dissolving this concern – scientific isolationism – fails
Challengesfor regulators
minimise the risk of malevolent use of synthetic biology
for scientists
get better at predicting how research will be used
for philosophers
ascertain the criteria for moral status
determine how to weigh risk of future wrongdoing against benefits of pursuing research in synthetic biology and analyse arguments for and against synthetic biology
Way Forward
1. Good science – risks and benefits2. Minimise existential risks - restriction of knowledge, raw materials,
etc3. Comprehensive evaluation of abilities, phenomenology, etc of new
life forms4. Appropriate ascription of moral status 5. Equal respect – to treat like cases alike, unless there is a relevant
moral difference
acknowledgements
Dominic Wilkinson, Michael Selgelid
The Wellcome Trust, Christ Church College