Abstract
Most of the reports on synthetic biology include not only familiar topics like biosafety and biosecurity but also a chapter on ‘ethical concerns’; a variety of diffuse topics that are interrelated in some way or another. This article deals with these ‘ethical concerns’. In particular it addresses issues such as the intrinsic value of life and how to deal with ‘artificial life’, and the fear that synthetic biologists are tampering with nature or playing God. Its aim is to analyse what exactly is the nature of the concerns and what rationale may lie behind them. The analysis concludes that the above-mentioned worries do not give genuine cause for serious concern. In the best possible way they are interpreted as slippery slope arguments, yet arguments of this type need to be handled with care. It is argued that although we are urged to be especially vigilant we do not have sufficiently cogent reasons to assume that synthetic biology will cause such fundamental hazards as to warrant restricting or refraining from research in this field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A different reason for finding the boundary between the natural and the artificial of ethical relevance would be that obliterating that boundary ignores the ‘wisdom of nature’ and thus causes problems. It has to be recognized, however, that this argument does not draw on a special intrinsic value of life because it is natural. It rather rests on a consequentialist reasoning that creating artificial life may cause unforeseen hazards. I will focus on this aspect in chapter IV.
Besides, even if one assumes that all harm is at least morally relevant, this value will in general always be outbalanced by other values.
Here I am exclusively concerned with the possible violation of the intrinsic value of the synthetically produced organism itself. Of course, synthetically produced organisms might compromise the intrinsic value of other living beings. That issue, however, is to be discussed under the heading of biosecurity/biosafety.
It is, however, generally to be noted that much of the issue has parallels to debates about cloning or embryonic stem cell research (cf, for example, Lauritzen 2001).
It was Descartes who—despite his insistence on the difference between res extensa and res cogitans—prominently promoted mechanical systems as an appropriate model for the explanation of the vital functions of organisms including those of human beings (cf. Yolton 1983, 29ff).
The ways in which the 'manipulation of life' at the genetic level has been presented to the public by journalists deserves equally attention (cf, for example, Nerlich et al. 2009).
References
Ball, P. (2011). Unnatural. The heretical idea of making people. London: The Bodley Head.
Bhutkar, A. (2005). Synthetic biology. Navigating the challenges ahead. The Journal of Biolaw & Business, 8(2), 19–29.
Boldt, J., Maio, G., & Müller, O. (2009). Synthetische Biologie. Eine ethisch-philosophische Analyse. Zürich, Switzerland: EKAH.
Calvert, J., & Tait, J. (2008). Conecpt note: Synthetic Biology. Risks and opportunities of an emerging field. Geneva, Switzerland: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (This report was updated 2010: http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/irgc_SB_final_07jan_web.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2011).
Dabrock, P. (2009). Playing god? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 47–54.
de Vriend, H. (2006). Constructing Life. Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. The Hague, the Netherlands: Rathenau Institute. Working Document 97.
Grunwald, A. (2010). From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 4(2), 91–101.
Habermas, J. (2001). Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt A.M., Germany: Suhrkamp.
Highfield, R. (2006). Ripped genes. The Daily Telegraph, 27 May. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/highfield06/highfield06_index.html. Accessed 25 Sep 2011.
Kant, I. (1793). Die Metaphysik der Sitten (cited as GMS). Berlin, Germany: Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, AA 06.
Kessler, H. (2008). Kreative Schöpfung—Kreativität Gottes. Überlegungen zum Spannungsfeld von Schöpfung und Evolution. In J. Klose & J. Oehler (Eds.), Gott oder Darwin? (pp. 27–58). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Lauritzen, P. (2001). Cloning and the future of human embryo research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Merkel, R. (2003). Contra Speziesargument. Zum normativen Status des Embryos und zum Schutz der Ethik gegen ihre biologistische Degradierung. In G. Damschen & D. Schönecker (Eds.), Der moralische Status menschlicher Embryonen (pp. 35–58). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B., Elliott, R., & Larson, B. (Eds.). (2009). Communicating biological sciences. Ethical and metaphorical dimensions. Farnham, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
NEST High-Level Expert Group. (2005). Synthetic biology. applying engineering to biology. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nest/docs/syntheticbiology_b5_eur21796_en.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2011.
Parens, E., Johnston, J., & Moses, J. (2009). Ethical issues in synthetic biology: An overview of the debates. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Peters, T. (2003). Playing God. Genetic determinism and human freedom (2nd ed.). New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html. Accessed 25 Sep 2011.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions. The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, DC. http://bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2011.
Preston, C. J. (2008). Synthetic biology. Drawing a line in Darwin’s sand. Environmental Values, 17, 23–39.
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
SYNTH-ETHICS. (2009). Identification of ethical issues and analysis of public discourse. http://www.synthethics.eu/documents/REPORT%20WP1%20synthethics%20-%20ethics+public%20discourse.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2011.
van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics, 3(3), 257–268.
Yolton, J. (1983). Thinking matter. Materialism in eighteenth-century Britain. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Acknowledgments
This publication is based on research conducted within the project Ethical and regulatory challenges raised by synthetic biology (SYNTH-ETHICS) in 2009, funded by the European Commission. I would particularly like to thank Armin Grunwald and Viktor Schubert for valuable discussions of earlier versions of this article. Thanks are also due to Philip Ball and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Link, HJ. Playing God and the Intrinsic Value of Life: Moral Problems for Synthetic Biology?. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 435–448 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9353-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9353-z