Synthetic biology enables scientists and engineers to create biological systems that do not exist in nature, or to modify already existing biological systems to perform novel and beneficial tasks. This emerging field can be seen as genetic engineering, or an extension of genetic engineering, because it also manipulates and transfers genes. As it advances, synthetic biology increasingly converges with nanotechnology and information technology. For example, nanoscientists are using viruses as battery components, DNA can be thought of as information, and cells are information networks. When people recognize this interconnectedness of science, it helps to recognize the interconnectedness of ethical issues. People often talk about the ethics of these emerging technologies in hyphenated terms such as gen-ethics, nano-ethics, neuro-ethics, synbio- ethics (synthetic bioethics) and IT-ethics (information technology ethics). As these emerging technologies converge, it becomes increasingly clear that the ethical issues among them are quite similar.
There are two types of ethical issues raised by synthetic biology. One is conceptual ethical issues; the other is specific non-conceptual ethical issues.
Conceptual issues concern the legitimacy of making living organisms. In 1999 a group of bioethicists examined the goal of scientists to create organisms with the smallest genome and concluded that this did not violate moral precepts, but raised the possible consequences for the concept of life of synthesizing such new independently viable organisms. The concept of "life" has many interpretations according to different theoretical situations. From a biological point of view, life is the condition that distinguishes living organisms from inorganic matter. But life in the biological sense is different from life in social contexts. For example, in Greek Zoe is used for the unique life process of all living things (similar to the Chinese word "biology"), while Bios is the social and cultural level of human life (similar to the Chinese word "life"). From a semantic point of view, the former is "bodies-as-objects", while the latter is "embodied beings", which are bodies connected with individual and irreducible self-experience. . Not to mention the creation of advanced animal or human life, even if we create or change simple life forms, what impact will it have on human life with social and cultural aspects? For example, after we create life, will we treat all life, including human life, wantonly? This is an issue that people are concerned about. This concern is sometimes raised in terms of the "don't play God" argument, which holds that all currently living organisms are "naturally" formed (or "created by God") and have evolved over millions of years. If we Trying to create life could have unintended consequences for the entire natural world and for all species on Earth, including humans. Related to this is the question of uncertainty and complexity about the possible impact of human creation of life on the environment. Opponents of "playing God" often argue that synthetic life fundamentally shouldn't be done. Of course, although this view is not unreasonable, it is difficult to establish.
How do specific non-conceptual ethical issues evaluate benefits and risks?
About the potential benefits: Benefits can be divided into two categories - advancing basic knowledge and creating new products. Synthetic biology helps understand how life began? How does a bunch of chemical compounds become living life? And of course: What is life? "We can't make something we don't understand," says physicist Richard Feynman. "The proof of the pudding may be making it," says molecular biologist Steven Benner. Scientist Benner hopes synthetic biology will lead to more rigorous testing of biological hypotheses. inspection. The second category of benefits is the creation of new energy sources, new biodegradable plastics, new tools for cleaning the environment, and new methods of making drugs and weapons. The hope is that these products will not only be new, but cleaner, better, and cheaper.
Potential risks or injuries can be roughly divided into two categories: physical injuries and non-physical injuries. Physical harm includes biosafety and biosecurity issues.
Biosafety issues: Synthetic microorganisms may have unexpected interactions with the environment or other organisms, thus posing risks to the environment and public health. These risks must be prevented or addressed in order to responsibly develop applied synthetic biology. The release of synthetic microorganisms into the environment may cause horizontal gene transfer and affect ecological balance, or may evolve to produce abnormal functions and produce unprecedented side effects on the environment and other organisms. Therefore biosecurity issues must be addressed.
Biocontainment Issues: These ethical issues arise from the use of synthetic lethal and virulent pathogens for terrorist attacks, biological warfare, or other malicious uses, especially when the knowledge and skills on how to produce these pathogens are readily available. . Uses of synthetic biology for this purpose include the production of biological weapons, such as new or altered disease-causing viruses or bacteria, and the creation of toxin-producing synthetic organisms. Given current knowledge, it is entirely possible to design and produce entirely new pathogens for terrorist and malicious use. Concerns about terrorism have led to debate over whether "dual-use" life science research that could lead to the development of biological weapons should be banned, such as genetic engineering of vaccines against plague and the synthesis of polio viruses. Should it be published?
Potential non-physical harm is a side effect on the well-being of an individual or society, involving justice, equality, interpersonal relationships, the relationship between man and nature, etc., and is sometimes difficult to describe. . For example, people's debates on patents, intellectual property rights, commercialization, mercantilism, etc. in synthetic biology involve people's different views on the concept of fairness; how to fairly distribute the benefits and risks that synthetic biology may bring is a very important non-physical issue. Sexual ethics issues.