Skip to main content
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 2/2015

01.08.2015 | Critical Discussion Notes

Different Understandings of Life as an Opportunity to Enrich the Debate About Synthetic Biology

verfasst von: Anna Deplazes-Zemp, Daniel Gregorowius, Nikola Biller-Andorno

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Comments and reports on synthetic biology often focus on the idea that this field may lead to synthetic life or life forms. Such claims attract general attention because “life” is a basic concept that is understood, interpreted and explained in multiple ways. While these different understandings of life may influence the ethical assessment of synthetic biology by experts and the public, this field might, in turn, influence how academics or the public view life. We suggest in this paper that synthetic biology provides an opportunity to discuss and compare different views and explanations of the world, starting from the concept of life. We argue that a narrow focus on just one interpretation of this concept may be harmful and that people will benefit from being aware of a diversity of understandings of life because they provide answers to different questions. Moreover, the confrontation among views is important for the development of reasoning abilities, and a nuanced view on our world will be useful for integrating scientific findings and their implications into a wider context. At the same time, we should not only consider other understandings of life for our own benefit but also because a moral attitude of respect for and toleration toward others implies permission to express and maintain their views. For these reasons, we suggest that a diversity of views on life should be included in public education and in public engagement events on synthetic biology. Moreover, they should be on the research agenda of technology assessment studies within the ELSA or RRI frameworks.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
We do not refer to the discrepancy in different understandings of life, which have to do with the fact that some positions speak of life as the property, activity, or phenomenon that is shared by all living organisms whereas others speak of life in a biographical sense as the life-history of a self-conscious being. We are only concerned here with positions that speak of life in the first sense. A special issue of the journal Worldview 17 [16, 34] introduces a set of different understandings of life in that sense and discusses how they influence the assessment of synthetic biology.
 
2
Exceptions to this general “agreement” include entities, such as viruses, erythrocytes, or spermatozoa, for which there are different opinions on whether they should count as “alive.”
 
3
American authors often use the acronym Ethical Legal and Social Implications/Issues (ELSI) for the same type of research. Since the first ELSA/ELSI research program of the human genome program has been launched, many developments of emerging technologies, particularly in the life sciences, have been accompanied by ELSA research programs.
 
4
In that sense, we support a point made by Philip Ball in an earlier article in this journal, namely, that we need to know more about different preconceptions and images of life and nature in order to be able to understand the public discourse on synthetic biology [2].
 
5
Anthony Kronman made a similar point in the context of racial and ethnic diversity in education in the USA: ([28]:. 875)
 
6
Stephen Darwall distinguishes between recognition respect, which is owed to all people and appraisal respect which is granted to appraise specific merits and of which thus not everybody is equally worthy [12]. In our context, we focus on recognition respect.
 
7
Because we are discussing what it means to act respectfully of others in the context of different understandings of life, we focus on respect for autonomous persons. This is not to say that human beings who are no persons (such as young children) ought not to be respected, but respecting them does not imply warranting that they can maintain, express and propagate their specific views on and interpretations of life.
 
8
When we speak of tolerating expressions of a proponent of a eugenic theory, this does not include political statements or discriminatory hate speech that directly violates human dignity of others. We exclusively speak of people who support eugenics as a scientific principle as it was supported by well-known scientists in the 1960s and 1970s, for instance some of the views expressed at the CIBA Symposium “Man and His Future” 1962 [43].
 
9
Joanna Goven revealed that this important point has been disregarded in New Zealand’s Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. In this report, the commission identified worldviews as the sources of people’s values. They mention the traditional Maori worldview, the ecological worldview and the religious worldview but do not take into account that also the rest of society, including scientists themselves, are influenced by a specific worldview with its values [21].
 
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ball P (2010) Making life: a comment on ‘Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life’ by Henk van den Belt (2009). Nanoethics 4:129–132. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0091-x CrossRef Ball P (2010) Making life: a comment on ‘Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life’ by Henk van den Belt (2009). Nanoethics 4:129–132. doi:10.​1007/​s11569-010-0091-x CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bovenkerk B (2012) Biotechnology. An anatomy of the debate. In: Bovenkerk B (ed) The biotechnology debate. Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Springer, New York, pp 19–61 Bovenkerk B (2012) Biotechnology. An anatomy of the debate. In: Bovenkerk B (ed) The biotechnology debate. Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Springer, New York, pp 19–61
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL, McGee D (1999) Policy forum: genetics. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286(5447):2087, 2089–2090CrossRef Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL, McGee D (1999) Policy forum: genetics. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286(5447):2087, 2089–2090CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J (1993) Freedom of expression. Philos Public Aff 22(3):207–263 Cohen J (1993) Freedom of expression. Philos Public Aff 22(3):207–263
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Comstock G (2010) Ethics and genetically modified foods. In: Gottwald F-T, Ingensiep HW, Meinhardt M (eds) Food ethics. Springer, New York, pp 49–66CrossRef Comstock G (2010) Ethics and genetically modified foods. In: Gottwald F-T, Ingensiep HW, Meinhardt M (eds) Food ethics. Springer, New York, pp 49–66CrossRef
12.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Davies S, McCallie E, Simonsson E, Lehr JL, Duensing S (2009) Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Underst Sci 18(3):338–353. doi:10.1177/0963662507079760 CrossRef Davies S, McCallie E, Simonsson E, Lehr JL, Duensing S (2009) Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Underst Sci 18(3):338–353. doi:10.​1177/​0963662507079760​ CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Dürnberger C (2008) Der Mythos der Ursprünglichkeit – Landwirtschaftliche Idylle und ihre Rolle in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung. Forum TTN 2008(19):45–52 Dürnberger C (2008) Der Mythos der Ursprünglichkeit – Landwirtschaftliche Idylle und ihre Rolle in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung. Forum TTN 2008(19):45–52
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0, A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’ QLG7-CT-1999-00286 Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0, A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’ QLG7-CT-1999-00286
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Goven J (2006) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(5):565–598. doi:10.1177/0162243906289612 CrossRef Goven J (2006) Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: scientific citizenship and the royal commission on genetic modification. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(5):565–598. doi:10.​1177/​0162243906289612​ CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Gregorowius D, Lindemann-Matthies P, Huppenbauer M (2012) Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops: a review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 25(3):265–293. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9330-6 CrossRef Gregorowius D, Lindemann-Matthies P, Huppenbauer M (2012) Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops: a review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 25(3):265–293. doi:10.​1007/​s10806-011-9330-6 CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Heyd D (1996) Introduction. In: Heyd D (ed) Toleration, an elusive virtue. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–17 Heyd D (1996) Introduction. In: Heyd D (ed) Toleration, an elusive virtue. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–17
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kronman AT (2000) Is diversity a value in American higher education. Fac Scholarsh Ser 52(5) Kronman AT (2000) Is diversity a value in American higher education. Fac Scholarsh Ser 52(5)
29.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Mill JS (2008) On liberty. In: Gray J (ed) On liberty and other essays. Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford, pp 5–130 Mill JS (2008) On liberty. In: Gray J (ed) On liberty and other essays. Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford, pp 5–130
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093 CrossRef Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760. doi:10.​1093/​scipol/​scs093 CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Powers M, Faden R (2006) Social Justice, the moral foundations of public health and health policy. New York Oxford University Press, Oxford Powers M, Faden R (2006) Social Justice, the moral foundations of public health and health policy. New York Oxford University Press, Oxford
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Scanlon T (1972) A theory of freedom of expression. Philos Public Aff 1(2):204–226 Scanlon T (1972) A theory of freedom of expression. Philos Public Aff 1(2):204–226
40.
Zurück zum Zitat The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research
42.
Zurück zum Zitat von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, London, pp 51–74CrossRef von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, London, pp 51–74CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolstenholme G (1963) Man and his future. Little, Brown and Company, Boston Wolstenholme G (1963) Man and his future. Little, Brown and Company, Boston
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Zwart H, Landeweerd L, von Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sci Soc Policy 10(11):1–19. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x Zwart H, Landeweerd L, von Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sci Soc Policy 10(11):1–19. doi:10.​1186/​s40504-014-0011-x
Metadaten
Titel
Different Understandings of Life as an Opportunity to Enrich the Debate About Synthetic Biology
verfasst von
Anna Deplazes-Zemp
Daniel Gregorowius
Nikola Biller-Andorno
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0226-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

NanoEthics 2/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner