PhD Defence on Synbio Ethics

We are very happy to announce the PhD defence of Synbio-Ethics scholar Andreas Christiansen on December 8. His work is a part of our bioSYNergy project and supervised by philosopher Sune Holm, Associate Professor and Research Committee member at Center for Synthetic Biology.

Title: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Respecting Life and Managing Uncertainty

Abstract: Synthetic biology offers plenty of attractive possibilities, including contributing to developing solutions to some of the major challenges facing humanity in areas such as health, food, energy and environmental sustainability. But it also raises ethical questions. As I see it, two overarching questions have defined the discussion of synthetic biology from an ethical and societal perspective:

(I) Should we be engaged in the design and fabrication of organisms at all?

(II) How should synthetic biology be developed and regulated from a societal point of view?

The dissertation, which consists of four articles, addresses aspects of these broad questions. Article 1 and and 2 have already been published:

1: Synthetic Biology and the Moral Significance of Artificial Life: A Reply to Douglas, Powell and Savulescu

2: Similarity Arguments in the Genetic Modification Debate

Question (I) is addressed in the two first articles:

Article 1 directly takes up the question of whether the creation of artificial life, as that activity is realized in synthetic biology, is a morally significant act. Article 2 discusses a common argument that aims to show that objections to designing and fabricating organisms (in synthetic biology as well as ‘traditional’ genetic engineering) should be rejected.

Together, articles 1 and 2 provide an argument that the answer to question (I) should not be taken to be a simple yes, as many philosophers seem to believe. I argue that many so-called intrinsic objections – objections to the activity of synthetic biology per se – make valid points if they are not interpreted as all-out rejections of the technology. Furthermore, I suggest that the relationship between intrinsic objections and questions of how society uses synthetic biology – i.e. between questions (I) and (II) – is closer and more complex than often thought. Nevertheless, I also argue that many important intrinsic objections do not stand up to further scrutiny.

Articles 3 and 4 concern one of the central issues falling under the heading of question (II), namely how the risks and uncertainties that characterise synthetic biology should be regulated. They deal with two of the most prominent approaches to risk management in environmental and health policy, namely the precautionary principle and cost-benefit analysis. Article 3 defends a moderate version of the precautionary principle from the charge of irrationality. Article 4 criticises an intriguing argument for the use of cost-benefit analysis, namely that it is a necessary corrective to the cognitive biases that mar our thinking about risk and uncertainty. Articles 3 and 4 thus collectively provide a tentative defence of the use of the precautionary principle and related strategies from criticisms mounted by proponents of expected utility maximization and cost-benefit analysis.

Assessment Committee:

Professor Nils Holtug, University of Copenhagen
Professor Catriona McKinnon, University of Reading, England
Professor Per Sandin, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Supervisor:
Associate Professor Sune Holm

Read more about Andreas’ work here

Andreas in Videnskab.dk