David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Nanoethics 3 (3):257-268 (2009)
The emergent new science of synthetic biology is challenging entrenched distinctions between, amongst others, life and non-life, the natural and the artificial, the evolved and the designed, and even the material and the informational. Whenever such culturally sanctioned boundaries are breached, researchers are inevitably accused of playing God or treading in Frankenstein’s footsteps. Bioethicists, theologians and editors of scientific journals feel obliged to provide an authoritative answer to the ambiguous question of the ‘meaning’ of life, both as a scientific definition and as an explication with wider existential connotations. This article analyses the arguments mooted in the emerging societal debates on synthetic biology and the way its practitioners respond to criticism, mostly by assuming a defiant posture or professing humility. It explores the relationship between the ‘playing God’ theme and the Frankenstein motif and examines the doctrinal status of the ‘playing God’ argument. One particularly interesting finding is that liberal theologians generally deny the religious character of the ‘playing God’ argument—a response which fits in with the curious fact that this argument is used mainly by secular organizations. Synthetic biology, it is therefore maintained, does not offend so much the God of the Bible as a deified Nature. While syntheses of artificial life forms cause some vague uneasiness that life may lose its special meaning, most concerns turn out to be narrowly anthropocentric. As long as synthetic biology creates only new microbial life and does not directly affect human life, it will in all likelihood be considered acceptable.
|Keywords||Anthropocentrism Frankenstein Hubris Meaning of life Playing God|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Pablo Schyfter (2012). Technological Biology? Things and Kinds in Synthetic Biology. Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):29-48.
Allen Verhey (1995). "Playing God" and Invoking a Perspective. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):347-364.
Thaddeus Metz (2007). God's Purpose as Irrelevant to Life's Meaning: Reply to Affolter. Religious Studies 43 (4):457-464.
Edouard Machery (2012). Why I Stopped Worrying About the Definition of Life... And Why You Should as Well. Synthese 185 (1):145-164.
Roger Grainger (2010). The Uses of Chaos. Peter Lang.
Patrick Heavey (2013). The Place of God in Synthetic Biology: How Will the Catholic Church Respond? Bioethics 27 (1):36-47.
Anna Deplazes-Zemp (2012). The Conception of Life in Synthetic Biology. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):757-774.
Christophe Malaterre (2009). Can Synthetic Biology Shed Light on the Origin of Life? Biological Theory 4 (4):357-367.
Hans-Jürgen Link (2013). Playing God and the Intrinsic Value of Life: Moral Problems for Synthetic Biology? Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):435-448.
Added to index2009-12-02
Total downloads69 ( #16,617 of 1,017,167 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,366 of 1,017,167 )
How can I increase my downloads?