The Moral Impact of Synthesising Living Organisms: Biocentric Views on Synthetic Biology

Abstract

This essay examines how biocentric positions assess the aims and planned products of synthetic biology. In this emerging field, scientists and engineers aim at designing and producing new life forms by various procedures. In this paper I explore whether, for biocentrists, 1) synthetic organisms have moral standing and, 2) the process of synthesising living organisms has moral implications. Because naturalness plays a role in some biocentric theories, synthetic biology -at first sight -seems to challenge the idea that all living organisms have moral standing. However, according to the interpretations that I offer, the biocentric positions discussed here would also assign moral standing to synthetic organisms. That living organisms have moral standing does not necessarily imply that it is morally problematic to synthesise them. However, different lines of biocentric argumentation suggest that in designing and synthesising living organisms, the moral standing of the product needs to be taken into account. This means among other things, that according to biocentrists, such procedures may lead to special responsibilities or require certain attitudes from scientists towards their products. AbstractThis essay examines how biocentric positions assess the aims and planned products of synthetic biology. In this emerging field, scientists and engineers aim at designing and producing new life forms by various procedures. In this paper I explore whether, for biocentrists, 1) synthetic organisms have moral standing and, 2) the process of synthesising living organisms has moral implications. Because naturalness plays a role in some biocentric theories, synthetic biology -at first sight-seems to challenge the idea that all living organisms have moral standing.However, according to the interpretations that I offer, the biocentric positions discussed here would also assign moral standing to synthetic organisms.That living organisms have moral standing does not necessarily imply that it is morally problematic to synthesize them. However, different lines of biocentric argumentation suggest that in designing and synthesising living organisms, the moral standing of the product needs to be taken into account. This means among other things, that according to biocentrists, such procedures may lead to special responsibilities or require certain attitudes from scientists towards their products.

Synthetic Biology: Old and New Dilemmas—The Case of Artificial Life

“…For some thinkers, living beings are characterized by the fact that they have an inherent purpose—a “telos” or aim to flourish or to satisfy their interests. According to them, a synthetic organism will have both transcendental and immanent aims or, in some other thinkers’ terms, proximate and ultimate interests, thus occupying a position between fully artificial and fully natural beings [ 21 ]. Fully artificial beings have no goal separate from that of their user/creator and therefore have only transcendental aims, while fully natural beings—as we believe—have immanent aims naturally emerging through evolution.…”

Introduction to Special Issue

“…The conception of life underlying this field includes the notions that such procedures can tell us something about life, and that human-designed and produced organisms are comparable to machines which are produced exclusively to fulfil human purposes (Deplazes-Zemp 2011).…”

Explaining life

“…Other philosophers—so‐called ‘biocentrists’—attest that all living organisms have moral standing and thus deserve moral consideration [16]. The reason for their moral standing is that they have a ‘good of their own’ [17]; living organisms can flourish if nurtured properly; and they can be harmed [18].…”

“…Worries of the second type are usually expressed by biocentrists, according to whom all living organisms deserve moral consideration. On these grounds, it can be argued that synthetic biologists have moral responsibilities towards the organisms they synthesize [16,18]. The third type of concern comprises, for instance, worries that the manner of speaking about life in synthetic biology might not warrant due respect for life, or that the assertion that life could be produced synthetically would be presumptuous or hubris.…”

“…For Jains the body of a synthetic organism carries a jiva. Biocentrists argue that a synthetic organism has moral value [16,18], and other philosophers claim that a synthetic organism is an autonomous system with subjectivity and a self. For those who believe that some aspects of life come from God, there is no reason why God should not have contributed to life in a synthetic organism [18].…”