Playing God? Synthetic Biology from a Protestant Perspective

Abstract

Living organisms can be seen from two different perspectives: From an observer's perspective, the researcher is looking to find and describe properties that characterize them, and from a participant's perspective, a human recognizes its vis-à-vis as an equally living and intention pursuing subject. From a Protestant perspective, a third way of looking at it is Introduced. Believing in God as the primordial "I," Christians confess to "You-ness" as their primordial and existential condition, enabling them not only to enter a relationship to other' you-ness', but to recognize God's great "I" in every drop of creation. The ethics of dealing with living organisms, including the human-made organisms of synthetic biology, then is a question of norms and principles but of an attitude of responsiveness, respect and love.

Beyond the Organism versus Machine Dichotomy: A Review of Ethical Concerns in Synthetic Biology

“…Twelve papers describe the blurring of lines between natural and artificial and human being and machine in different contexts. ,,,,,,,,,,, Ten papers feel that synthetic entities challenge a normative understanding of “natural” and “life” and alter the intuitive dichotomy between the living and nonliving. ,,,,,,,,, One paper uses the example of “hybrid humans” created with SynBio in medicine to point out how they could have implications for understanding embodiment and its relationship to the “natural” or “biological” . Two papers claim that the endeavor to understand life further and bridge the gap between nonlife and life dissolves the boundary and blurs lines between “nature” and “culture”. , Only one paper discusses that SynBio brings no meaningful change in the human relationship to nature since the technology is still somewhat limited to modifying simple organisms …”

“…1,31,38 On the other hand, three papers mention that creating life is not new and has been happening since the dawn of time with human interference in agriculture and animal breeding. 5,32,37 In one paper, the author specifically mentions that the discussion on creating life can be postponed until scientists can build an organism using only inorganic chemicals. 8 Twelve papers describe the blurring of lines between natural and artificial and human being and machine in different contexts.…”

“…4,5,8,10,13,18,32 At the same time, four papers state that human beings must recognize their limits and boundaries even if considered stewards to protect nature. 16,20,31,37 F i f t e e n p a p e r s u s e t h e p h r a s e c r e a t i n g life. 1,2,5,8,10,13,15,17,23,27,[31][32][33]35,38 In these papers, different authors use this phrase with other, sometimes, opposing meanings.…”

“…8 Twelve papers describe the blurring of lines between natural and artificial and human being and machine in different contexts. 2,11,13,16,20,24,27,30,31,33,35,37 Ten papers feel that synthetic entities challenge a normative understanding of "natural" and "life" and alter the intuitive dichotomy between the living and nonliving. 2,11,13,20,27,30,31,33,35,37 One paper uses the example of "hybrid humans" created with SynBio in medicine to point out how they could have implications for understanding embodiment and its relationship to the "natural" or "biological".…”

How Will the Emerging Plurality of Lives Change How We Conceive of and Relate to Life?

“…From a religious perspective it is sometimes also assumed that the invention of new forms of life is wrong since it means that we are taking over the role of creator. We are "playing God", so to speak [72][73][74][75]. There is also room for discussion among believers of different religions regarding how to relate to life that is created by us and therefore cannot be conceived of as being created by a god.…”