The emergent new science of synthetic biology is challenging entrenched distinctions between, amongst others, life and non-life, the natural and the artificial, the evolved and the designed, and even the material and the informational. Whenever such culturally sanctioned boundaries are breached, researchers are inevitably accused of playing God or treading in Frankenstein’s footsteps. Bioethicists, theologians and editors of scientific journals feel obliged to provide an authoritative answer to the ambiguous question of the ‘meaning’ of life, both as a scientific definition (...) and as an explication with wider existential connotations. This article analyses the arguments mooted in the emerging societal debates on synthetic biology and the way its practitioners respond to criticism, mostly by assuming a defiant posture or professing humility. It explores the relationship between the ‘playing God’ theme and the Frankenstein motif and examines the doctrinal status of the ‘playing God’ argument. One particularly interesting finding is that liberal theologians generally deny the religious character of the ‘playing God’ argument—a response which fits in with the curious fact that this argument is used mainly by secular organizations. Synthetic biology, it is therefore maintained, does not offend so much the God of the Bible as a deified Nature. While syntheses of artificial life forms cause some vague uneasiness that life may lose its special meaning, most concerns turn out to be narrowly anthropocentric. As long as synthetic biology creates only new microbial life and does not directly affect human life, it will in all likelihood be considered acceptable. (shrink)

Maintaining the coherence of the distinction between nature and artefact has long been central to environmental thinking. By building genomes from scratch out of 'bio-bricks', synthetic biology promises to create biotic artefacts markedly different from anything created thus far in biotechnology. These new biotic artefacts depart from a core principle of Darwinian natural selection – descent through modification – leaving them with no causal connection to historical evolutionary processes. This departure from the core principle of Darwinism presents a challenge to (...) the normative foundation of a number of leading positions in environmental ethics. As a result, environmental ethicists with a commitment to the normative significance of the historical evolutionary process may see synthetic biology as a moral 'line in the sand'. (shrink)

Communicating Biological Sciences discusses the 'ethics' of science communication in light of recent developments in biotechnology and biomedicine. It focuses on the role of metaphors in the creation of visions and the framing of scientific advances, as well as their impact on patterns of public acceptance and rejection, trust and scepticism. Its rigorous investigation will appeal not only to science writers and scientists, but also to scholars of sociology, science and technology studies, media and journalism.

Hailed as revolutionary, the prospect of human cloning is actually the next logical step in a series of developments in reproductive technology that began with the first test-tube baby in 1978. This book addresses the debates over cloning in the context of new reproductive technology and human embryo research. It examines the status of preimplantation embryos, the ethical issues related to cloning and embryo research, and the formulation of public policy.

In the wake of the emergence and rapid development of nanoethics there swiftly followed fundamental criticism: nanoethics was said to have become much too involved with speculative developments and was concerning itself too little with actually pending questions of nanotechnology design and applications. If this diagnosis is true, then large parts of nanoethics are misguided. Such fundamental criticism must surely either result in a radical reorientation of nanoethics or be refuted for good reasons. In this paper, I will examine the (...) critics’ central arguments and, building on this scrutiny, formulate an answer to these alternatives. The results lead to conclusions which allow explaining and unfolding the thesis of this paper that instead of speculative nanoethics we should better speak of and develop explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. (shrink)

From the legendary inventor Daedalus to Goethe's tragic Faust, from the automata-making magicians of E.T.A Hoffmann to Mary Shelley's Victor Frankenstein – ...

Das Forschungsfeld der Synthetischen Biologie lässt sich als eine Fortentwicklung der Gentechnik verstehen, bei der in besonderer Weise ingenieurwissenschaftliche Methoden und Paradigmen zum Tragen kommen. Die Synthetische Biologie profitiert dabei von den Fortschritten der Gensequenzierungs- und DNA-Synthesetechnologien und von neuen Verfahren des Genome Editing. DNA-Sequenzen bis hin zu ganzen Genomen einzelliger Organismen können rekombiniert und vollständig synthetisiert werden und die entsprechenden intra- und interzellulären Prozesse können zielgerichtet verändert werden. Mit dieser im Vergleich zur klassischen Gentechnik erhöhten Eingriffstiefe verbindet sich in (...) der Synthetischen Biologie das ingenieurwissenschaftlich geprägte Ideal, DNA-Sequenzen modularisiert und standardisiert zu beschreiben, so dass sie als BioBricks je nach intendiertem Anwendungszweck des zu verändernden Organismus frei miteinander kombiniert – ›zusammengesteckt‹ – werden können. (shrink)