Transcript Slide Title - University of Oxford

TWO CONCERNS ABOUT SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
TOM DOUGLAS AND JULIAN SAVULESCU
OXFORD UEHIRO CENTRE FOR PRACTICAL ETHICS
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
Cello et al. 2002
de novo synthesis of
poliovirus
Venter proposal
minimal bacterial
chassis
competing definitions
DERIVATION FROM
EXISTING ORGANISM
DE NOVO SYNTHESIS
EXISTING NOVEL
ORGANISM ORGANISM
broad
definition
narrow
definition
synthetic biology = de novo synthesis of biological organisms/components
benefits
medical applications (diagnostics and therapeutics)
environmental applications (biofuels, biosensors, bioremediation)
industrial applications
Context
Ethical issues no different to:
genetic engineering, transgenesis, chimeras
machine-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.
4.
synthetic biology will result in accidental harm
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. 2002
de novo synthesis of
poliovirus
Tumpey et al. 2005
Reconstruction of 1918
Spanish influenza virus
1st concern
2nd concern
unifying the concerns
scientific isolationism
the second concern – undermining the moral status of living things
Cho, Magnus, Caplan & McGee (1999):
creation of beings
between living
things & machines
1st concern
X
2nd concern
acceptance of
reductionist
account of life
X
unifying the concerns
no longer ascribe
“special status” to
life
scientific isolationism
MORAL STATUS
PERSONS:
human rights
interests
intrinsic value
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS:
?? rights
? interests
? intrinsic value
PRODUCTS OF
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
???
MACHINES:
no rights or interests
instrumental value only
1st concern
2nd concern
unifying the concerns
scientific isolationism
a reformulation of the second concern
human/animal
interests sacrificed
for the sake of
synthetic beings
synthetic beings
assigned great
moral status
1st concern
2nd concern
humans/animals
harmed
humans/animals
assigned lesser
moral status (on
some theories)
unifying the concerns
scientific isolationism
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)
1st concern
2nd concern
pursuing research in synthetic
biology brings about future
wrongdoing
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 claim
scientists 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 claim
scientific 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 claim
a 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 claim
individual 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 claim
we 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
Challenges
for 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 benefits
2. Minimise existential risks - restriction of knowledge, raw materials,
etc
3. Comprehensive evaluation of abilities, phenomenology, etc of new
life forms
4. 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