Suggestions for a Comprehensive Approach Allen Buchanan, Ph.D. Department of Philosophy and Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy Duke University Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics University of Oxford Russell Powell, J.D. Ph.D. M.S. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Program on Ethics of the New Biosciences University of Oxford The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: 1

Step 1: Consider the Benefits On the basis of a broad understanding of what synthetic biology includes Identify the full range of potential benefits of synthetic biology – in basic sciences – in practical applications Determine which benefits can only be obtained, or only obtained at reasonable costs, through synthetic biology 2

Step 2: Classify the Risks Provide a comprehensive classification of risks in accordance with the severity of harm, probability of occurrence, and amenability to management 3 Determine which of these risks, if any, are peculiar to synthetic biology - Note the synthesis/modification continuum

Step 3: Rank the Risks In our judgment… The most important risks are 4 (1) unintended bad consequences (2) dual use Other supposed risks include -Playing God -Devaluing Life (encouraging ‘reductionist’ views) -Encouraging unwholesome attitudes toward humankind’s relationship to nature

Dual Use There are Two Dual Use Problems, Not One 5 Dual Use 1: the risk of misuse of synthetic biology by bad non-state actors or “rogue states” Dual Use 2: the risk that “good” governments may use synthetic biology—including research and techniques developed in anti-terrorism or defensive bioweapons programs—for offensive purposes Efforts to reduce risk of Dual Use 1 may not be effective for, and may even exacerbate, risk of Dual Use 2 -risk of “defensive” bioweapons arms race

Unintended Bad Consequences 6 Avoid tacit or explicit reliance on supposed “benevolent balance of nature” metaphors distorts rational assessment of risks underestimates potential gains wrongly assumes that status quo is optimal/stable Critically examine the risk and evidence of harms associated with the escape of synthetic organisms into the wild, relying cautiously on information about GMOs Look to astrobiological literature for relevant analogies

Step 4: Manage the Risks Emphasize that all technologies carry risk and that the goal is risk management, not the elimination of risk Emphasize that risk reduction is costly and that often the marginal costs of risk reduction are rising (e.g. harvest low-hanging risk reduction fruit first) Institutional Design: note how different incentives for individuals in different roles can lead them to over- estimate or underestimate risk (and the costs of risk reduction) 7

Manage the Risks cont… Develop cautionary heuristics and practices that – are knowledge-sensitive – encourage relevant knowledge-acquisition – take the costs of risk reduction seriously – have effective provisions for on-going critical revision of risk assessment and management practices – do not rely on a single risk-reduction or prevention principle, especially for such a heterogeneous domain as synthetic biology 8

Manage the Risks cont… Help develop risk reduction principles and practices that draw on – proven containment and reversibility techniques that are already available for genetic modification technologies – techniques that are already being developed for synthetic organisms Promote research to develop new containment and reversibility techniques Determine the extent to which existing containment and reversibility techniques developed for other technologies are adequate for synthetic biology in its various forms 9

Manage the Risks cont… 10 Consider the nature of value, and the limitations of risk/benefit, cost/benefit, and cost-effectiveness analysis Acknowledging the (limited) value of these modes of analysis is not to assume that all moral values can be quantified Note that taking consequences seriously does not require adopting a consequentialist moral framework

Playing God There are two versions of the “Playing God” concern: 11 (1)Metaphysical or Theological Version: it is not appropriate for humans to “create life,” change human nature, interfere with nature, etc. (2) Epistemic Version: warning against hubris, understood as overestimating our ability to predict the consequences of our interventions (meta-risk)

Humankind’s Relationship to Nature Avoid misleading metaphors about the living world – such as “the wisdom of nature,” “the benevolent balance of nature,” “the master engineer of evolution,” “genetic pollution,” “breaching species barriers,” etc. Ensure that analysis is informed by a scientifically accurate understanding of nature grounded in evolutionary biology Beware of controversial normative assumptions being smuggled in under the heading of “the natural,” “human nature,” and “nature” 12

Humankind’s Relationship to Nature cont. 13 Some view synthetic biology as a victory for “reductionism” insofar as it demonstrates that life is “just a conglomeration of molecules” Need to distinguish alternative understandings of reductionism The ability to construct organisms “de novo” does not imply reductionism properly understood Even if reductionism properly understood were true, nothing of moral significance would follow -The moral status of beings depends on whether they possess certain properties (e.g. sentience, the capacity for agency), not on whether those properties are reducible to ‘materialistic’ properties.