Team:TU-Delft/test10

There is no agreed definition of synthetic biology, but it is best understood as the deliberate design of biological systems and living organisms using engineering principles.

One of the most potent promises of synthetic biology is the creation of ‘artificial life’. This has provoked fears about scientists ‘playing God’ and raises philosophical and religious concerns about the nature of life and the process of creation. Religion involves a belief in a spiritual world (often accompanied with a deity), influencing the world view of a person and determining moral principles through a belief (mostly written in a book) and/or cultural system. What religion often tries to pass is an explanatory world view, trying to grasp the world.

Often religion considers living species as beings having a cause (for instance, in the Catholic church the task of people is to make the world as if it were heaven) and directing the introduction or deletion of functions in these beings influence this cause tremendously. With introduction of smelling genes in yeast the whole sexual reproduction system of yeast is disturbed. The cause of reproduction therefore has changed. Introducing designed genes in an organism, even considering the gradual discovery of essential functions, therefore can be called ‘acting as God’ in the respect that there is a significant and directed influence in the target organism and its siblings.

It has been suggested that a stable definition of ‘life’ is impossible and that synthetic biologists are confused over what life is, where it begins and particularly, how complex it must be. In response a number of scientists have proposed a modified version of Turing’s test for life imitation. However, it is unclear whether these moves to undermine lay concepts of life will ameliorate deeper fears about the blurring of the boundary between the artificial and the natural world.

The regulator of these licenses also has an ethical decision to be made: ‘Where would it be permitted to implement this invention?’ Also he has to ask himself the possibility of dual use, being aware of consequences which can occur when the invention comes to the open and much more considerations. The producer of the invention then has the ethical decision of distribution the invention. Given the ethical viewpoint of the inventor and regulator he should be aware of the possible damages an invention can cause. He is then to be blamed when he sells the product to malevolent or incapable people anyway.

With knowledge about evolutionary processes there is known that many organisms modified in laboratories wouldn’t survive in nature. Just because the ‘extra genes’ only cost extra energy and there is no gain in maintaining those genes. A yeast cell that has sacrificed its sexual reproduction mechanism to get the function of smelling just wouldn’t survive. Changing species by knocking out functions or introducing extra survival skills however, can lead to more viable species. With these species the risk is greater and therefore the possible consequences should be considered before making the species. What will happen when it breaks out?

Natural virtue ethics is a part of virtue ethics theorem which is discussed because it also considers the animalistic behavior of people. Being realistic, decision making of people doesn’t go according to a theory often, but mostly it occurs more pragmatic. When a decision is made it can contain someone’s moral view point, but not often it is completely according to a theory. This theory provides the proper characteristics of the righteous actor on which everyone should base their actions. Gene Modification seems a hard topic for a virtuous person or group. The topic provides a list of pros and cons, uncertainties and proven concepts, but when the act of gene transfer is virtuous cannot be said by these facts alone.

The main concerns in this area are centred on the development of synthetic organisms that are either intentionally or accidentally released into the environment.When is considered what sort of methods and genes are patented at this moment and judging the legal verdict about genetic patent cases, the extent genetic patenting will play a role in research seems limited. Since scientists most of the time try to comprehend and research natural phenomenon, patent infringement should never occur because natural genes and products can’t be patented. When engineers are researching a modified gene they have to be able to see to what extent genetic licensing is done in that area. Until now this does not exist, so there is a chance patent infringement comes as an unwelcome surprise. Licensing for engineering purposes only seems fair since the use of inventions have to be valued.

When applications come to the market, which are more and more exposed to the society, the party against Genetic Modifications has great chance to get bigger. When such applications have to be valued by a board where all parties with interests are present, a general acknowledgement of a certain application can be made.

Objections to gene patents and licensing specifically often comes from analysts and researchers, who are limited to the use of the patented products instead of performing a diagnosis or designing an experiment. These objections are thus pragmatic and not out of an ethical standpoint. With too much patents around a new technology becomes clogged, something researchers want to prevent.

Non-research related objections are more diffuse. Not everyone has the ability to sue the firms, that have these patents or publicize their thoughts so it is not as visible as when scientists oppose to it. That doesn’t mean people don’t care when they know what is going on. Action groups have been founded and perform steps to prevent the spread of GM crops in a political and practical way. Their concerns aren’t the same as the objections researchers pose and their arguments are also different. Where researchers base their argument on the topic Natural vs. Non-Natural and obviousness of the invention, action groups tend to argue out of risk assessments and fundamental considerations.

It should be discouraged suing any scientific investigation and inspect every detail of patent claims, which can intervene with the research of natural beings. Being realistic, scientist are often funded by companies with commercial interests, conducting experiments for their interest and providing them results which aren’t released. The line between engineering and researching is thin in this field and the amount of competition is great. Therefore, the interests of one who claims to be a scientist should be open. Scientists with mutual interests (both commercial and scientific), should be watched carefully on patent infringement since it can interfere with the invention of the competition. Inventions for the production of commodities seem to me the most valuable and desired findings, not competing with scientific goals.

A patent on a gene is, however, allowable when one can show the inventive step. A smart way of assembling matter is what an invention is and when a gene is rearranged to such an extent that it has a new function someone should be credited. When this invention happens to ease scientific findings, the latter have to pay for it. It has an analogy to transportation: Some people can’t buy a Mercedes. Mercedes cars are faster and provides ease, but there is always the possibility to walk to your goal. However, it really should be a non-obvious inventive step for experts also. A characteristic which in some patents can be doubted.

The reaction of scientists to spread alternatives is, according to our opinion, great, it speeds up the technological progression. Still people, who do that have to keep in mind that their work is mostly funded by proven applications, so they may be cutting in their own hands.

New inventions are one thing, but desired ones another. In adjusting living species a market-based evaluation of value isn’t enough in my opinion. When people want to pay for it this doesn’t prove it is good in itself. Commercial interests and interests of individuals involved, intended or unintended should be weighed. Individuals who are prone to risks should be informed and given a voice in the debate of implementing the application intended. This is the only way our desired world stays desired by everyone.