Team:Copenhagen/Ethics

As participants in iGEM we have been confronted with several ethical dilemmas. We have grown increasingly interested in discussing these subjects and believe that it is an important debate to have among scientist as well as on an interdisciplinary level. We believe that iGEM with its young and idealistic team members can serve as the perfect platform for such discussions.

Since the competition regards ”machines” built of biobricks, it made us wonder if it is possible to distinguish between biological machines and natural organisms. What similarities exist between the two? Is an organism really just a very complex small machine consisting of parts different from the ones in machines that we are used to, for example a cell phone?

In the iGEM competition and in biological science in general, we remove or introduce new genes that result in new skills that enable the organism to serve a specific purpose. A central question would be, how much genetic material one could remove or introduce, before the organism was changed so much that it would have changed substantial characteristics to be either a new organism or a biological machine.

It is an ongoing discussion, which we want to be a part of, as we consider it being a central part of the iGEM competition.

Another central theme of the iGEM competition is that everything is open source. Therefore we find it relevant to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of open source. It may be naive to think, that it won’t be exploited or used carelessly, which could have huge consequences for the environment and human life.

One purpose of creating biobricks is to make manipulation of organisms easier and faster for scientists. However, when all information in the parts registry is open source, this makes it possible for non-trained persons to create their own manipulated organisms in the garage at home. It might not be an issue for now, but as the techniques and instruments become less complicated and expensive, society will stand before a great challenge regarding regulation and control. Already, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) biology groups are growing in number around the world. The basis of theese are open source and sharing of knowledge. Recently the DIY biology movement found its way to Copenhagen, as a mini lab was set up at Labitat in H.C.Ørstedsvej. This indicates that work with organisms in laboratories outside a professional scientific environment, is not only hypothetical, and that there is an interest for DIY biology. This could be a reason to discuss the pros and cons for open source biology.

Machines

• Are there any philosophical implications in regarding living organisms as machines and treating them as such?

• What defines a machine? Vs. What defines a life?

• With that in mind, is it correct to refer to the organisms and biological systems that we create as machines? Is a machine built from scratch by man, or can a manipulated organism become a machine? Could an organism that we manipulated to serve one specific purpose, for example to produce insulin, be regarded as a machine? If yes, is there a difference from this manipulated organism to a cow producing milk?

• Is it at all relevant to discuss the difference between a biological machine and an organism?

• Does any cell have a moral status? Does being alive confer moral status on an organism.

• Is the moral status the same for a sentient being as it is for a non-sentient?

  If we can act in a way that harms an organism, then some people argue that we should consider them to have moral status even if this status doesn’t entail that they should be considered as being of the same moral importance as sentient and thinking beings.

• Would the first few examples of a new form of life created in the lab be like the last remaining examples of a threatened species?

• If we assume that a cell can have a moral status:

• Are there any differences in moral status between E.coli and a mammalian cell? How significant should the manipulation of the organism be for it to lose its moral status? Can it ever lose its moral status?

• When does a cell acquire a moral status as a living being? If we build a cell from scratch, from for example biobricks, what would be the minimal requirements for it to be considered having a moral status? What type of moral status would pertain to this strain. Should we from now on treat it as a new species on the brink of extinction?

Open Source

• By open source, we mean the free accessibility to information about genetic material, protocols for working with it and the ease and standardization of the methods used.

• Are there any problems associated with open source biology?

• Which advantages could open source have for scientific community and society in general?

• On a timescale of 100 years, will it be possible for people with no professional training, to do genetic manipulations of organisms at home?

• If yes: what are the perspectives for this development?

  • What are the dangers and possibilities with kitchen genetical biology.

  • Should it be regulated and how, if possible, could we do that?

• If no: What are the obstacles for genetic manipulations at home?