Different Understandings of Life as an Opportunity to Enrich the Debate About Synthetic Biology

Abstract

Comments and reports on synthetic biology often focus on the idea that this field may lead to synthetic life or life forms. Such claims attract general attention because Blife^is a basic concept that is understood, interpreted and explained in multiple ways. While these different understandings of life may influence the ethical assessment of synthetic biology by experts and the public, this field might, in turn, influence how academics or the public view life. We suggest in this paper that synthetic biology provides an opportunity to discuss and compare different views and explanations of the world, starting from the concept of life. We argue that a narrow focus on just one interpretation of this concept may be harmful and that people will benefit from being aware of a diversity of understandings of life because they provide answers to different questions. Moreover, the confrontation among views is important for the development of reasoning abilities, and a nuanced view on our world will be useful for integrating scientific findings and their implications into a wider context. At the same time, we should not only consider other understandings of life for our own benefit but also because a moral attitude of respect for and toleration toward others implies permission to express and maintain their views. For these reasons, we suggest that a diversity of views on life should be included in public education and in public engagement events on synthetic biology. Moreover, they should be on the research agenda of technology assessment studies within the ELSA or RRI frameworks.

(Re‐)Designing Nature? An Overview and Outlook on the Ethical and Societal Challenges in Synthetic Biology

“…One possible perspective-and perhaps the most common within the life sciences, which reflect the understanding of life that underpins traditional biologyis to define life in terms of a list of distinctive properties that distinguish living organisms from non-living matter. [59,71,72] This is especially the case because both natural scientists and philosophers are facing the question of whether or not it is possible to generate novel forms of life from scratch. [62][63][64] Additionally, these lists of criteria seem to function as fuzzy concepts by including or excluding entities, which tend to blur the lines between living and non-living.…”

Societal impact of synthetic biology: responsible research and innovation (RRI)

“…The question 'What is life?' can be interpreted differentlyreferring to a variety of philosophical, religious or scientific concepts [24,28,29].…”

“…Therefore, societal and ethical implications have usually been considered in comparison with similar 25 applications from other biotechnologies (e.g. green gene technology) or by analyzing the Societal impact of synthetic biology: responsible research and innovation 11 worldviews conveyed by the aims of synthetic biology that speak of engineered living organisms and synthetic cells [29]. This speculating nature is one of the main challenges for RRI programs on synthetic biology.…”

“…It is crucial that experts from science and other disciplines should communicate their analysis and interpretation in an open and transparent way to the laypersons in a public education as well 10 as engagement process [29].…”