SSBWG Philosophy and the Ethics of Synthetic Biology

1. SSBWGPhilosophy andthe Ethics of Synthetic Biology Wednesday, May 25th

2. Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledgeThomas Douglas and Jilian Savulescu, Philosophy, University of Oxford • “what kinds of knowledge should be sought and disseminated”? • the authors’ primary concern is deliberate misuse of knowledge • greater role for ethicists • dual-use dilemma • the field needs principles by which to determine what knowledge is too dangerous to pursue and disseminate • test for risk • precautionary principle • cost/benefit analysis • proactionary principle (only clear and immediate risks warrant research limits)

3. Dual-Use Dilemma The so-called “dual-use dilemma” arises in the context of research in the biological and other sciences as a consequence of the fact that one and the same piece of scientific research sometimes has the potential to be used for evil as well as for good. A dual-use dilemma is an ethical dilemma, and an ethical dilemma for the researcher (and for those who have the power or authority to assist or impede the researcher’s work, eg. governments). It is an ethical dilemma since it is about promoting good in the context of the potential for also causing harm, e.g. the promotion of health in the context of providing the wherewithal for the killing of innocents. It is an ethical dilemma for the researcher not because he or she is aiming at anything other than a good outcome; typically, the researcher intends no harm, but only good. Rather, the dilemma arises for the researcher because of the potential actions of others. Miller and Selgelid. Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Center for Applied Philosophy and Pubic Ethics for the National Security Science and Technology Unit. 2006.

4. But scientists are not morally responsible for how their work is used • Even if scientists are not held responsible for uses of their work, those uses are still relevant to the rightness or wrongness of that work

5. The ethical landscape: identifying the right way to think about the ethical and societal aspects of synthetic biology research and productsSteven Yearley, Sociology, University of Edinburgh • the bioethics template is inadequate for synthetic biology • failure of Venter and Cho’s “ethical review” • public concerns vs. serious ethical concerns • is impartial ethical advice attainable? • principlism in bioethics • “The bioethics review is also a poor model for desirable kinds of review of synthetic biology because the assumption of the centrality of universal ethical principles is even less applicable to these startling areas of biological innovation than to the case of novel medical interventions.”

6. Principles of Bioethics • RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY • Does my action impinge on an individual's personal autonomy? • Do all relevant parties consent to my action? • Do I acknowledge and respect that others may choose differently? • BENEFICENCE • Who benefits from my action and in what way? • NON-MALEFICENCE • Which parties may be harmed by my action? • What steps can I take to minimize this harm? • Have I communicated risks involved in a truthful and open manner? • In the event of a disaster, how can I avert the possible harm caused? • JUSTICE • Have I identified all vulnerable groups that may be affected by my action? • Is my proposed action equitable? How can I make it more equitable