Biotechnology, Modes of Action, and the Value of Life

Synthetic biology can give rise to euphoric utopian scenarios, as well as to frightening dystopian narratives. These scenarios and narratives are not based on a consequentialist analysis of synthetic biology as a value neutral means to given ends. In contrast, the hopes and fears of these future scenarios are based on an apprehension of different modes of action that are meant to be prevalent in synthetic biology. Utopian visions highlight synthetic biology’s potential to contribute to a society that lives and acts in “cooperation” with nature, whereas dystopian scenarios interpret synthetic biology as “disrupting” our connection to nature. It is argued that these differences can be philosophically spelled out in terms of a distinction between “communicative” versus “instrumental” modes of action. On this basis, a proposal is made to address what it might mean for a biotechnology to adhere to the communicative mode of action. In general, a communicative technology prefers to induce change by exploring and making use of the inner tendencies and interests of an organism. In contrast, an instrumental technology favors redesign to efficiently achieve given ends. As it turns out, the current main characteristics of synthetic biology, by and large, render it an example of the instrumental mode of action. As a consequence, from an ethical point of view extra effort is needed to make ideas of careful step-by-step approaches to innovation plausible in synthetic biology settings.