- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray tackle some important issues raised by the emerging field of synthetic biology. Many of these issues arise precisely because synthetic biology is still emerging, making it hard, if not impossible, to predict how the technology will pan out. In the context of this uncertainty, Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray imply, we may have to change our familiar patterns of thinking and governing. It is this point that I elaborate on here. I argue that if we embrace the (...) |
|
|
It is easy to call for public engagement (or dialogue) around difficult, morally fraught policy topics such as synthetic biology, but it is quite another thing to make sure that the deliberation is meaningful, as Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray aptly insist it should be. The surveys, focus groups, and public dialogues that have been held about synthetic biology to date show a very low level of public knowledge about it. Focus group findings also suggest that the inherent uncertainty and complexity (...) |
|
|
Most discussions about the risks associated with synthetic biology tend to begin and end with the same message. That is, in these revolutionary times, when the capabilities for designing and reengineering biological agents are advancing at previously unimaginable rates but have still not realized their full potential, when risks therefore remain uncertain, and where the actors are generally well‐meaning people who seek important benefits for society and environment, the most reasonable approach is to exercise “prudent vigilance,” to minimize proscriptive oversight, (...) |
|
|
The introduction of new genetic material into wild populations, using novel biotechnology, has the potential to fortify populations against existential threats, and, controversially, create wild genetically modified populations. The introduction of new genetic variation into populations, which will have an ongoing future in areas of conservation interest, complicates long-held values in conservation science and park management. I discuss and problematize, in light of genetic intervention, what I consider the three core goals of conservation science: biodiversity, ecosystem services, and wilderness. This (...) |
|
|
Synthetic biology is a broad term covering multiple scientific methodologies, technologies, and practices. Pairing biology with engineering, synbio seeks to design and build biological systems, either through improving living cells by adding in new functions, or creating new structures by combining natural and synthetic components. As with all new technologies, synthetic biology raises a number of ethical considerations. In order to understand what these issues might be, and how they relate to those covered in ethics literature on synbio, we conducted (...) |
|
|
BackgroundGene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the (...) |
|
|
It's a bold but frankly risky opening shot for Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray to commence their report by claiming that a “majority opinion” or a “near‐consensus” has now been reached on the matter of synthetic biology. Risky because “majority opinions,” even in well‐established controversies, are highly unstable (events will have many surprises in store) but also risky because... well... the majority of whom, exactly? North American bioethicists? Invitees to Washington roundtable discussions? Or some sort of broader meaningful public majority? According (...) |
|
|
Synthetic biology has spawned a debate about how society and the international community should go about policy‐making, especially given the potential for both transformative benefits and existential threats. One of the significant contributions of “The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Next Steps and Prior Questions,” by Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray, is its exploration of the difficulties of developing policy that appropriately addresses the risks and benefits of synthetic biology. In this comment I want to develop this point further and emphasize how (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
In considering how to weigh the risks and benefits of synthetic biology, Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray pose the question of whether there is scientific research that should not be funded or performed, or if there are potentially dangerous results that should not be widely disseminated. Such questions, they propose, require a new set of rules and norms for knowledge generation—an “ethics of knowledge.” They identify two examples of research that might fall into a nonpermissible category, including “research that is aimed (...) |
|
|
Synthetic biology has generated extensive discussion about a wide range of risks and potential benefits, the intrinsic value of the technology, and the societal distribution of its risks and benefits. However, before these questions can be resolved, it is important to first ask a critical question: Is synthetic biology different enough from the technologies that came before it that it raises new questions or concerns? By putting synthetic biology into context, we gain a better understanding of the issues, both old (...) |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6b65f85844-9bt58 uwo