Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

7. Synthetic Biology

  • COMPOST Collective (author)
Chapter of: Bioethics: A Coursebook(pp. 109–126)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title7. Synthetic Biology
ContributorCOMPOST Collective (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0449.07
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0449/chapters/10.11647/obp.0449.07
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightCOMPOST Collective;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-05-12
Long abstractEthical considerations in synthetic biology (SynBio) extend beyond biosafety and biosecurity concerns to encompass issues of justice and political dimensions, necessitating an approach that accounts for both theoretical frameworks and the practical realities of laboratory research. Given SynBio’s interdisciplinary approach and dual-use potential, ensuring its overall positive impact requires a stage-wise and research area-specific ethical analysis rather than treating it as a monolithic technology. Ethical assessments should be integrated at distinct phases of research—knowledge generation, methodological development, and application—while also prioritizing environmental and livelihood justice to address broader societal implications. Establishing ethical awareness early in researchers’ careers can foster a long-term commitment to responsible research practices, influencing both individual projects and institutional policies. Although political and corporate interests often drive technological development, fostering public engagement and ethical discourse remains imperative. Furthermore, current ethical discussions on SynBio frequently rely on dualistic frameworks, such as nature versus machine or life versus nonlife, which can lead to conceptual deadlocks. Integrating non-dualistic perspectives, particularly from non-Western philosophies, can provide deeper insights and contribute to a more holistic and context-sensitive ethical approach to SynBio.
Page rangepp. 109–126
Print length18 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

COMPOST Collective

(author)
Research Group at the Department of Philosophy at University of Antwerp
https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/research-groups/compost/

COMPOST Collective is a research group at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Antwerp. This interdisciplinary collective has a specific interest in (bio)ethics and is embedded in the department's Center for Ethics.

References
  1. Aravind Paleri, Varsha, and Kristien Hens. 2023. “Beyond the Organism versus Machine Dichotomy: A Review of Ethical Concerns in Synthetic Biology”. ACS Synthetic Biology 13 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.3c00456
  2. Baindur, Meera. 2015. Nature in Indian Philosophy and Cultural Traditions. Vol. XII. Sophia Studies in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures. New Delhi: Springer India. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2358-0
  3. Baindur, Meera. 2009. “Nature as Non-Terrestrial: Sacred Natural Landscapes and Place in Indian Vedic and Purāṇic Thought”. Environmental Philosophy 6 (2): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil20096213
  4. Basso, L. C., Thiago Olitta Basso, and Saul Nitsche Rocha. 2011. “Ethanol production in Brazil: The industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation”. In Biofuel Production—Recent Developments and Prospects, edited by Marco Aurelio dos Santos Bernardes, pp. 85–100. Rijeka: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/17047
  5. Benner, Steven A., and A. Michael Sismour. 2005. “Synthetic Biology”. Nature Reviews Genetics 6 (7): 533–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1637
  6. “Case Study: Artemisinin and Synthetic Biology | ETC Group”, 2 July 2014. https://www.etcgroup.org/content/case-study-artemisinin
  7. Douglas, Thomas, and Julian Savulescu. 2010. “Synthetic Biology and the Ethics of Knowledge”. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (11): 687–93. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038232
  8. Ducarme, Frédéric, and Denis Couvet. 2020. “What Does ‘Nature’ Mean?”. Palgrave Communications 6 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y
  9. European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC). Synthetic Biology: An Introduction. January 2011. https://www.interacademies.org/sites/default/files/publication/synthetic_biology_an_introduction_feb_2011.pdf
  10. Gibbs, W. Wayt. 2004. “Synthetic Life”. Scientific American 290 (5): 74–81.
  11. Hudson Robotics. n.d. “Introduction to Synthetic Biology: Exploring the Basics and Applications”. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://hudsonrobotics.com/introduction-to-synthetic-biology-exploring-the-basics-and-applications/
  12. Kitney, Richard, and Paul Freemont. 2012. “Synthetic Biology - the State of Play”. FEBS Letters 586 (15): 2029–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2012.06.002
  13. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html
  14. “Nature Addresses Helicopter Research and Ethics Dumping”. Nature, 30 May 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01423-6
  15. Okafor, Justus Onyebuchi, and Osim Stella. 2018. “Hinduism and Ecology: Its Relevance and Importance”. FAHSANU Journal 1 (1). https://philarchive.org/rec/OKAHAE
  16. Ouaray, Zahra, Steven A. Benner, Millie M. Georgiadis, and Nigel G. J. Richards. 2020. “Building Better Polymerases: Engineering the Replication of Expanded Genetic Alphabets”. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 295 (50): 17046–59. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.REV120.013745
  17. “Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) - European Commission”. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://health.ec.europa.eu/scientific-committees/former-scientific-committees/scientific-committee-health-and-environmental-risks-scher_en
  18. Szczebara, F. M., Cathy Chandelier, Coralie Villeret, Amélie Masurel, Stéphane Bourot, Catherine Duport, Sophie Blanchard, Agnès Groisillier, Eric Testet, Patricia Costaglioli, Gilles Cauet, Eric Degryse, David Balbuena, Jacques Winter, Tilman Achstetter, Roberto Spagnoli, Denis Pompon, and Bruno Dumas. 2003. “Total biosynthesis of hydrocortisone from a simple carbon source in yeast”. Nature Biotechnology 21 (2): 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt775
  19. “When Synthetic Biology Meets Medicine | Life Medicine | Oxford Academic”. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://academic.oup.com/lifemedi/article/3/1/lnae010/7623268
  20. Widmaier, D. M., Danielle Tullman-Ercek, Ethan A Mirsky, Rena Hill, Sridhar Govindarajan, Jeremy Minshull, and Christopher A. Voigt. 2009. “Engineering the Salmonella type III secretion system to export spider silk monomers”. Molecular Systems Biology 5 (1): 309. https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2009.62
  21. Wilson, Shawn. 2008. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
  22. World Health Organization (WHO). “Artemisinin resistance and artemisinin-based combination therapy efficacy: Status Report”. December 2018. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/publications/gmp/who-cds-gmp-2018-26-eng.pdf
  23. Zhang, Carolyn, Ryan Tsoi, and Lingchong You. 2016. “Addressing Biological Uncertainties in Engineering Gene Circuits”. Integrative Biology 8 (4): 456–64. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ib00275c
  24. Zhou, Y., et al. 2023. “Improved production of Taxol® precursors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using a genome-scale metabolic model-guided approach”. Microbial Cell Factories 22 (1): 221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02251-7