SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology

Abstract

As part of the SYNBIOSAFE project, we carried out an open electronic conference (e-conference), with the aim to stimulate an open debate on the societal issues of synthetic biology in a proactive way. The e-conference attracted 124 registered participants from 23 different countries and different professional backgrounds, who wrote 182 contributions in six different categories: (I) Ethics; (II) Safety; (III) Security; (IV) IPR; (V) Governance and regulation; (VI) and Public perception. In this paper we discuss the main arguments brought up during the e-conference and provide our conclusions about how the community thinks, and thinks differently on the societal impact of synthetic biology. Finally we conclude that there is a chance for an open discourse on the societal issues of synthetic biology happening, and that the rules to govern such a discourse might be set up much easier and be respected more readily than many would suggest.Aims and scope of the SYNBIOSAFE e-conference Synthetic Biology (SB) is becoming one of the most dynamic new fields of biology, with the potential to revolutionize the way we do biotechnology today. By applying the toolbox of engineering disciplines to biology, a whole set of potential applications are made possible ranging very widely across scientific and engineering disciplines. Some of the potential benefits of SB, such as the development of low-cost drugs or the production of chemicals and energy by engineered bacteria are projected to be enormous. There are, however, also potential and perceived risks related to deliberate or accidental damage. In order to ensure a vital and successful development of this new scientific field and in addition to addressing its potential benefits, it is absolutely necessary to gather information about risks and to devise biosafety strategies to minimize them. Also, the ethical issues of SB are just beginning to be explored, with few ethicists specifically focusing on the area of SB (de Vriend 2006;van Est et al. 2007). While a few undertakings on safety and ethics have recently started in the US, our project SYNBIOSAFE is the first initiative in Europe which focuses particularly on the safety, security, and ethical concerns and which tries to facilitate a socially acceptable development of SB. We have co-organized the safety/security and ethical sessions at the SB 3.0 in Zurich last June, and since then have carried out a survey among leading European SB practitioners regarding their viewpoints on safety, security and ethical issues (e.g., Kelle 2007). We then wanted to discuss the selected issues with a 123Syst Synth Biol (2008) 2:7-17 DOI 10.1007/s11693-008-9019-y wider group of experts and interested stakeholders. Thus we carried out an open online conference-or e-conference-on the internet. The aim of this open e-conference was to further stimulate the debate on these issues in a proactive way, at a relatively early stage. The discussions and consultations during the e-conference were a first contribution to stimulate a wider debate ...

Current Ethical Issues in Synthetic Biology: Where Should We Go from Here?

“…Like many of the debates over SynBio, reasoning about harms tends to be consequentialist (Schmidt et al, 2008;Swierstra and Rip, 2007); perhaps because identifying outcomes and endpoints is more amenable to scientific engagement than is a discussion of principles, duties or virtues which may lack tangibility or practical context. A consequentialist approach also naturally lends itself to considerations of harm, which can then provide a useful 'hook' into discussions over policy-making for SynBio.…”

“…A potential non-physical harm in SynBio is the role that humans have in creating new entities and how this may affect conceptions of the self and relationships to the environment (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2009, p43). Creating novel life forms is a key aim of SynBio and there has been some discussion over whether creating a novel entity such as a microorganism is indeed creating life or merely a biological machine (Schmidt et al, 2008). However if SynBio does move on to more complex applications, new entities may require evaluation as to their moral status.…”

“…A significant benefit of SynBio is that it is anticipated that the scale-up and manufacture of devices, entities or processes developed in the lab may not be as expensive as for other emerging technologies. This is because SynBio can exploit the in-built proliferation mechanisms of 'living' entities (Schmidt et al, 2008). However existing issues around the necessary infrastructure to translate these technologies for beneficial use for all will exist for SynBio just as they do for other technologies.…”

“…While a precautionary approach to oversight of new and emerging technologies has tended to be criticised in bioethics literature, the nuances and uses have been defended in other domains such as law (Fisher, 2007). Additionally, Schmidt et al (2008) have reported that some scientists believe that the precautionary principle should have a role in debates over SynBio, particularly as we do not yet know what applications this technology may give rise to. Multidisciplinary engagement specific to the putative benefits and harms of SynBio may help advance this debate.…”

“…( (Schmidt et al, 2008). As an alternative, Parens et al (2008) claim that we instead need to be better able to address existing ethical questions in new scientific contexts than to derive a whole new sub-genre of bioethics.…”