A patent is a license for a sole right to exclude others from making, using or selling an invention. A small company has had an idea for, and wants to develop a ‘wonder vaccine’ using synthetic biology, which has the potential to protect against polio (a life threatening disease). However with the company’s current resources it would take many years to develop… Should the company be able to patent this idea, so that a larger company cannot develop it more quickly? Things to consider : The company relies on sales for income – allowing another company to produce the vaccine means they will lose out on potential income Protection means the drug will take long to be produced and many more lives will be lost during this period

The influenza virus is a virus which causes the flu. Recently, a group of Chinese researchers created a new strain of influenza virus, which is deadly, and say they are looking at new ways of tackling it. The global scientific committee have hailed this as an ‘appalling irresponsibility’. Do you think regulations should be put in place to control this kind of practice? Things to consider: Do the ends justify the means? Potentially, the researchers could cure a deadly virus. What if the virus escaped/was released? Politics in science – there could be massive global impact if a cure was found and also if the virus escaped.

Synthetic Biology is a rapidly developing field with huge potential. From spider-goats to insulin-producing bacteria, the scope is enormous. However, this also lends to a huge range of unknown outcomes, which could have devastating consequences, especially at industrial-scale production. An example of this could be the inadvertent production of greenhouse gases, or damaging effects on local ecosystems. A synthetically-produced drug that might be used to treat malaria could also create by-products that have harmful effects on the ecosystem. Should the production of the drug go ahead even though it could have damaging effects on the environment? Things to consider: Would it be ethical to not produce the drug knowing millions of lives could be saved? Are researchers playing God? Is science pushing its boundaries by perhaps causing harm to the environment? Could we create something that is more dangerous than advantageous?

In 2010, Venter and his colleagues ‘created life’- they made bacteria from scratch. This suggests that it isn’t out of reach to be synthetically creating higher organisms in the future. Things to consider: Many religious figures have warned that creating life may be ‘Playing God’ and that we should not interfere with His plans. What rights would the created life form have? Are beings created synthetically deserving of the same rights as humans or animals? If a higher organism, synthetically created, was murdered, would the murderer receive the same punishment as if they had murdered a natural human being?

Different countries have different regulations. You might not be able to do something in one country under their legislation/laws, but you could travel to another country to do it there. For example, the use of embryonic stem cells for research is heavily restricted in Europe and within public institutions in America. However within private research centers in America there are no such restrictions. Should there be international regulations? Things to consider: Practicalities- is it possible for regulations to be enforced globally? What do different religions and cultures say about synthetic biology?

Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, is a religious believer. He believes that there is no conflict between religion and science, describing DNA as ‘God’s language’. However, Crag Venter is an atheist. He describes DNA as the ‘software of life’. Can science and religion be compatible? Things to consider: Does science only answer how questions, not why questions? (e.g. how did we get here vs. why are we here) If God created humans with the ability to carry out extensive scientific research shouldn’t we use this ability?

In Mary Shelley’s novel ‘Frankenstein’, scientist Victor Frankenstein ‘creates’’ a monster. The monster he creates is an 8ft being who is able to think and feel but who also goes on to commit a number of crimes including murder. If a scientist today created a ‘human’ life form using synthetic biology that then went on to commit a crime, who would be held responsible for this crime? The being that was created or the creator? Things to consider: Did the scientist know when they created the life form that it was capable of committing crime? Does the synthetically created human life form have the same moral beliefs as human beings?