8. Biotechnology and synthetic biology

2021 ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Mark Lorch
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Pure Science ◽  
Micro Scale ◽  
Synthetic Organisms ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

This chapter explores the fields of biotechnology and synthetic biology. The micro-scale of synthetic biology clearly indicates the use of knowledge drawn from biochemistry. But its philosophy is more closely aligned to the principles of engineering than those of pure science. The chapter then looks at some examples of synthetic biochemistry, and reflects on what this new field might herald. It studies the creation of synthetic organisms and genomes. The chapter also considers gene editing and the emergence of a powerful gene editing technique, known as CRISPR (from clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats). Finally, it addresses ethical issues and the darker applications of these technologies.

scholarly journals Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Considerations for Top-Down Governance for Biosecurity and Synthetic Biology

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
R. Alexander Hamilton ◽  
Ruth Mampuys ◽  
S. E. Galaitsi ◽  
Aengus Collins ◽  
Ivan Istomin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Dna Sequencing ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Dual Use ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Modern Biology ◽  
The Creation

AbstractSynthetic biology promises to make biology easier to engineer (Endy 2005), enabling more people in less formal research settings to participate in modern biology. Leveraging advances in DNA sequencing and synthesis technologies, genetic assembly methods based on standard biological parts (e.g. BioBricks), and increasingly precise gene-editing tools (e.g. CRISPR), synthetic biology is helping increase the reliability of and accessibility to genetic engineering. Although potentially enabling tremendous opportunities for the advancement of the global bioeconomy, opening new avenues for the creation of health, wealth and environmental sustainability, the possibility of a more ‘democratic’ (widely accessible) bioengineering capability could equally yield new opportunities for accidental, unintended or deliberate misuse. Consequently, synthetic biology represents a quintessential ‘dual-use’ biotechnology – a technology with the capacity to enable significant benefits and risks (NRC 2004).

Human Physiology: A Very Short Introduction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie A. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Human Physiology ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Physiological Mechanisms ◽  
Short Introduction ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Internal Parameters ◽  
The Creation

Human Physiology: A Very Short Introduction explores how the human body works, senses, reacts, and defends itself. Physiology is the science of life. It considers how human bodies are supplied with energy, how they maintain their internal parameters, the ways in which they gather and process information or take action, and the creation of new generations. This VSI examines the experiments undertaken to understand the interplay of the vast variety of physiological mechanisms and principles within us, and analyses the ethical issues involved. It also looks at how enhanced understandings of physiological knowledge can help inform medical research and care.

scholarly journals Societal impact of synthetic biology: responsible research and innovation (RRI)

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gregorowius ◽  
Anna Deplazes-Zemp
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Biotechnological Applications ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Living Organisms ◽  
Responsible Research

Synthetic biology is an emerging field at the interface between biology and engineering, which has generated many expectations for beneficial biomedical and biotechnological applications. At the same time, however, it has also raised concerns about risks or the aim of producing new forms of living organisms. Researchers from different disciplines as well as policymakers and the general public have expressed the need for a form of technology assessment that not only deals with technical aspects, but also includes societal and ethical issues. A recent and very influential model of technology assessment that tries to implement these aims is known as RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation). In this paper, we introduce this model and its historical precursor strategies. Based on the societal and ethical issues which are presented in the current literature, we discuss challenges and opportunities of applying the RRI model for the assessment of synthetic biology.

A Redesigned Planet?

2020 ◽  
pp. 234-296
Author(s):  
John Parrington
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Molecular Biology ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
New Development ◽  
Whole Number

Given the speed of change in the development of new technologies mentioned in this book such as genome editing, optogenetics, stem cell organoids, and synthetic biology, it is hard to predict exactly how radically these technologies are likely to transform our lives in coming decades. What is clear is that as exciting as the new biotechnologies are in terms of their impact on medical research, medicine, and agriculture, they also raise a whole number of socio-political and ethical issues. These include concerns about whether monkeys engineered to have genetic similarities to humans might lead to a ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario, and fears about ‘designer babies’ being produced in the future to have greater beauty, intelligence or sporting skill. Although one potentially positive new development is the rise of a ‘biohacker’ movement which seeks to make molecular biology more accessible to ordinary people, there are also fears that in the wrong hands genome editing might be used to create new types of biological weapons for terrorist organisations. While such fears should not be dismissed as just an overreaction, to some extent they rest on an underestimation of the complexity of the Iink between the human genome and looks, intelligence, and sporting ability, or of the difficulties involved in creating a deadly virus that is worse than naturally occurring ones. Ultimately, the best way to ensure that new technologies are used for human benefit, not harm, is to take part in an informed debate and use public lobbying to argue for them to be developed safely, ethically, and responsibly.

scholarly journals Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene editing

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Cwik
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Follow Up Study

Design of clinical trials for germline gene editing stretches current accepted standards for human subjects research. Among the challenges involved is a set of issues concerning intergenerational monitoring—long-term follow-up study of subjects and their descendants. Because changes made at the germline would be heritable, germline gene editing could have adverse effects on individuals’ health that can be passed on to future generations. Determining whether germline gene editing is safe and effective for clinical use thus may require intergenerational monitoring. The aim of this paper is to identify and argue for the significance of a set of ethical issues raised by intergenerational monitoring in future clinical trials of germline gene editing. Though long-term, multigenerational follow-up study of this kind is not without precedent, intergenerational monitoring in this context raises unique ethical challenges, challenges that go beyond existing protocols and standards for human subjects research. These challenges will need to be addressed if clinical trials of germline gene editing are ever pursued.

Gene Doping—in Animals? Ethical Issues at the Intersection of Animal Use, Gene Editing, and Sports Ethics

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLYN P. NEUHAUS ◽  
BRENDAN PARENT
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The State ◽  
Sports Ethics ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Moral Status Of Animals ◽  
Do So

Abstract:Gene editors such as CRISPR could be used to create stronger, faster, or more resilient nonhuman animals. This is of keen interest to people who breed, train, race, and profit off the millions of animals used in sport that contribute billions of dollars to legal and illegal economies across the globe. People have tried for millennia to perfect sport animals; CRISPR proposes to do in one generation what might have taken decades previously. Moreover, gene editing may facilitate enhancing animals’ capacities beyond their typical limits. This paper describes the state of animal use and engineering for sport, examines the moral status of animals, and analyzes current and future ethical issues at the intersection of animal use, gene editing, and sports. We argue that animal sport enthusiasts and animal welfarists alike should be concerned about the inevitable use of CRISPR in sport animals. Though in principle CRISPR could be used to improve sport animals’ well-being, we think it is unlikely in practice to do so.

scholarly journals Reevaluating the Risk of Smallpox Reemergence

2020 ◽  
Vol 185 (7-8) ◽  
pp. e952-e957 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Raina MacIntyre
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Variola Virus ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
High Security ◽  
Bioterrorism Agent ◽  
New Treatments

Abstract Introduction Smallpox, caused by variola virus, was eradicated in 1980, but remains a category A bioterrorism agent. A decade ago, smallpox ranked second after anthrax in a multifactorial risk priority scoring analysis of category A bioterrorism agents. However, advances in genetic engineering and synthetic biology, including published methods for synthesizing an Orthopoxvirus, require the assumptions of this scoring for smallpox and other category A agents to be reviewed. Materials and Methods The risk priority framework was reviewed and revised to account for the capability for creation of synthetic or engineered smallpox and other category A agents. Results The absolute score for all agents increased because of gene editing and synthetic biology capability, which was not present when the framework was developed more than a decade ago, although new treatments revised scores downward for smallpox, Ebola, and botulism. In the original framework, smallpox scored 0 for global availability, given the high security around known seed stocks of variola in two laboratories in the United States and Russia. Now, smallpox can be created using synthetic biology, raising the score for this criterion to 2. Other agents too, such as Ebola, score higher for availability, based on synthetic biology capability. When advances in synthetic biology and genetic engineering are considered, smallpox and anthrax are now equally ranked the highest category A bioterrorism agents for planning and preparedness. Conclusions Revision of a risk priority framework for category A bioterrorism agents shows that smallpox should be elevated in priority for preparedness planning, and that gene editing and synthetic biology raises the overall risk for all agents. The ranking of categories A, B, and C agents should also be revisited, as there is an endless possibility of engineered threats that may be more severe than any agent on the category A list.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document