Interview Questions on Synthetic Biology and Ethics
In total 20 European key scientists were interviewed, representing the “core group” of the
European synthetic biology community, which we defined as those persons and institutions
that coordinate (or participate in) one of the EC-FP6-NEST1 funded synthetic biology projects
(European Commission 2007). Of these 18 synthetic biology projects funded, 13 are larger
R&D projects2 and 5 are smaller support activities dealing e.g. with community building,
safety and ethical aspects, and future funding needs. We managed to interview 12 out of 13
coordinators from the R&D projects, plus 5 key R&D project partners, and 1 support activity
project partner. Also we included the coordinator and a key project partner of the first EC-FP7
synthetic biology project (HZI 2008).
Age: at the time of the interview, 5 interview partners (or 25%) were between 30 and 40 years
old, 8 (40%) between 40 and 50, and 7 (35%) were 50 or older.
Gender: most of the interviewed experts, 19 out of 20, were male.
Place of work: 5 experts were working in Germany, 4 each in the UK and France, 3 in Spain,
2 in Italy, and 1 each in Switzerland and Belgium.
Professional background: 11 out of 20 experts stated that they had more than 1 disciplinary
background (such as biology, genetics, chemistry, engineering, biomedical engineering),
revealing the highly interdisciplinary expertise of these people. 50% of them have a
background in chemistry, 40% in biology, 35% in genetics, 15% engineering, and 30% in
other areas (e.g. physics, mathematics, computer science, philosophy).
Given the geographic distribution of the experts, the interviews were carried out by phone
(VOIP) and were recorded using Call Recorder software. In two cases the interviews were
done face to face using a videocamera to record the interview. The interviews were
performed by Markus Schmidt and Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, as part of the SYNBIOSAFE
project. Below is a compilation of the answers given by respondents, in the form of notes,
phrases, catchwords and quotations. These notes, taken by the scientists who performed the
interviews, served as a background of the analysis described in the paper.
QUESTIONS
1. How would you –in brief sentences - define synthetic biology? (Is synthetic biology
fundamentally different from traditional bio-engineering?)
#1

1
Design and fabrication of biological component s and systems, not existing in nature
as such, large difference to metabolic or genetic engineering, large component of
design, SB is cristalisation, engineering counterpart of system biologies. To design
and achieve certain functions
See: http://cordis.europa.eu/nest/home.html
The names of these 13 R&D projects are: BIOMODULAR H2: Engineered Modular Bacterial Photoproduction
of Hydrogen; BioNano-Switch: A Biological Nanoactuator as a Molecular Switch for Biosensing;
CELLCOMPUT: Biological Computation Built on Cell Communication Systems; COBIOS: Engineering and
Control of Biological Systems: a New Way to Tackle Complex Diseases and Biotechnological Innovation;
EUROBIOSYN: A modular platform for biosynthesis of complex molecules; FuSyMEM: Functional Synthetic
Membranes for GPCR based Sensing; HYBLIB: Human monoclonal antibodies from a library of hybridomas;
NANOMOT: Synthetic Biomimetic Nanoengines: a Modular Platform for Engineering of Nanomechanical
Actuator Building Blocks; NEONUCLEI: Self-assembly of synthetic nuclei: key modules for semibiotic
chemosynthetic systems; NETSENSOR: Design and Engineering of gene networks to respond to and correct
alterations in signal transduction pathways; ORTHOSOME: An Orthogonal Episome: an Artificial Genetic
System Based on a Novel Type of Nucleic Acids; PROBACTYS: Programmable Bacterial Catalysts;
SYNTHCELLS: Approaches to the Bioengineering of Synthetic Minimal Cells
2

Traditional GE, single genes, not take into account the network the context it is
embedded, more than sum of parts
#2
The organisation, arrangement and understanding of biological system using the
techniques, skills and precision of conventional engineering.
#3
I would like to emphasize that synthetic biology (SB) “should be different” from
traditional bio-engineering in two major respects:
a) SB differs from genetic-engineering in one important issue: it deals with cell biological
circuits from which they to develop standards. The notion of standardization is critical in
SB, because we assume that the particular circuit will always function as expected, i.e.,
it is much more controlled and, up to a point, we have a deeper knowledge of it than
under the classical genetic-engineering framework.
b) It is an objective of SB to work with the full cell system. If we are able to develop
different biological circuits of the cell, as stated in a) we will also be able to combine all
these circuits within a full cell system. The way to proceed is by building minimal cells
#4






Like GE to the extreme, but much beyond, using computational methods, biological
parts.
We can modify organisms many genes in one shot
Cheaper
Aspect: construction of synthetic molecules
Both qualitative (systems engineering, design, like airplane, something new) and
quantitative (larger quantities, high troughput, new developments, reduced costs)
Pers. Interested in in vivo SB, re-engineering of the cell
#5



Production, construction of living systems, living organisms with evolutionary
stability! (this is an important point). Different to biomimetics, biotech (conventional
one) is not evolutionary stable
Drew Endy (he means the biobrick foundation and its concepts) is not doing
evolutionary stable constructs, variations can be selected for. Parts  design +
evolutionary improvements, failed attempt  bona fide
Design from scratch, evolutionary stable (mentioned again), understand biology
#6

Creation of biological systems, products not known in nature, it is more
interventionistic than traditional GE, SB has more ambitious goals, like metabolic
engineering, but much ambitious

many definition on SB, not much different from existing definitions on traditional
biotech, from chemical point of view, origin of life problem, how to design new
systems that do not exist in nature, production of chemicals / molecules, redesign and
re-engineer systems to make new things possible, simplify systems to understand them
better. Application and fabrication will be important,
synthetic = not natural
#7

#8

#9
coming from the material science background: take manmade matter in contact with
nature and see how this can be to the advantage of material approach e.g. we work on
membrane structures, replace some components of membranes, mimic ampiphilic
stuctures.
1. Use existing building blocks in nature (that have evolved) to perform a different
function, to misuse them for biotechnical purposes
#10

Application of genetic engineering to produce novel pathways that are designed to
perform a specific function. And in this process engineering criteria are used in the
modelling and planning of the circuit
#11

Technically similar to genetic manipulation: construct living beings of the simplest
kind in order to re-programme them. Organisms are still recognizable but reprogrammed to so something to do something other than they usually do. Other people
try to understand why the organisms don’t do what they are programmed to do…to
find out why they are doing what they are doing, independent of the original success.
Difference between gen. Eng and SB is the complexity level.
#12

Building artificial cells/systems- we assume this can be done but we need to figure out
the constraints in getting there. Understanding biology through failure
#13

Synthesis of bio-structures and systems that do not exist in nature with the aim of
understanding out basic knowledge of life. The basic science aspect is important
#14
Activities converting biology in a true engineering discipline, by that I mean
o Modular design
o Identifiable systems boundaries
o Hierarchies of abstraction
o For example separation of design and manufacturing
 That was not available in biology or biotechnology. Traditionally it is like in a dark
room where you feel your way around and sometimes you are lucky enough to make a
step forward. True SB could change that to a much more rational design and approach
 Typically we have a complex system, that is difficult to understand and to design
rationally
 Want to address big challenges: sustainable chemical industry, medicine, energy…
 Today biotechnology fails frequently, it is inefficient
 In contrast engineering, has innovation cycles of few months, SB is the attempt to
work towards these aims
#15
Synbio is emerging. It has some new and some old aspects. First mentioned in the early 20th
century, but in a different context, the term has since then undergone a metamorphosis. Now
it is understood as “ discovery of biological systems with the eyes of an engineer”. Molecular
biology was the creation of physicists, because of interest in biology. Synbio is the creation of
engineers, who rediscover biological systems as a matter/as an object of study/analysis with
tools and conceptual framework of bona fide engineering. Interface engineering (science) and
molecular biology. Before the term “engineering” In genetic engineering was used as a
metaphor , as an analogy. Now for Synbio engineering is the real methodology.
 What is new? The engineering aspect. Not taking pieces and putting them somewhere.
Now Synbio is meant to have a plan, a blueprint, hierarchies of action, simulation,
ways to predict how systems behave.
 Traditional GM: trial and error approach. Try many combinations and see what works.
Synbio: development of biological systems, start with first principles that come from a
engineering body. Solving problems with planning, blue print. Like trial and error vs.
direct design. Comparable to medieval architecture. Wonderful building but no
science behind it. Trial and error. Modern architecture: complete design, you know
everything. That is also the dream of SB: to predict behaviour of biological systems,
before they exist.
#16

It is systems oriented, in comparison to Genetic engineering (GE). GE is to modify
one part , Synbio is modification of many interacting parts. Modification and design of
systems. That way it is an extension of GE.
#17

Rather than to study biological systems by taking them apart and to try to study
individual components, it is to build new systems from scratch and to study those,
quasi-biological systems. Synthesis is the ultimate test of understanding. Applies to all
levels of biology (chemical, macromolecule, systems)
#18

MIT definition is a bit too narrow. Would like things that we and others do…e.g.
building synthetic anti-bodies, would like to look beyond the genetic definition.
Anything that uses building blocks outside /inside organisms, to create a library, e.g.
to be screen for some properties etc. That’s not just the building of new living org. ,
building blocks that do something (e.g. binding to cancer cells, harvesting light,
induce electric current). Library of recombinant anti-bodies were a kind of SB too.
#19

Production or use of biologically-derived parts in non-standard biological contexts. In
Bio. Eng. one would be using and adapting living organism to do things, whereas this
is taking sub-systems out of biological systems and using them in a different context,
e.g. using it as part of a device or using the organisms themselves as part of a device
which is outside the normal BE approach.
#20
SB , the rational modification of living systems. Wrote an article about this in xxxx.
Using rational design, no big difference from what has been done over the past years,
apart from the engineering component.
2. What would you expect to be the most important development/application of synthetic
biology in 5 years? in 15 years?
#1


Developments at level of understanding, streamline circuits
Production of chemicals, health applications, regulation of certain processes, switches
tumour regulation, novel sources of energy (BP project, hydrocarbon molecules
instead of petrol)
 Applications will take longer than we expect, In 5 years we can understand better, but
no break through applications
#2 The ability to provide a catalogue of biologically active components, which can be
assembled in a well-described manner, so as to allow the production of novel constructs.
AND
The ability to provide precision positioning to the localisation of key biological
components, which will allow self-assembly of novel biologically-based devices and
machines.
#3
5 years:
a) Building more and more complex and sophisticated standard biological cell circuits.
b) Deriving minimal artificial cells by deleting genes from natural cells with already reduced
genomes.
c) In close connection with Systems biology to have a full knowledge, in silico based, on a
minimal cell.
d) Increasing number of biotechnology and biomedical applications associated to specific
biological circuits properly introduced in biological vectors.
15 years:
a) To have a full comprehension on the functioning of a bacterial cell. This is Systems
Biology.
b) This knowledge will allow us to build a cell from very basic molecular components
#4
 Short term: bioproduction of compounds (chemicals) in a cheap way, e.g. malaria
artimisinin, or ellagic acid against cancer, synthesis into bacteria
 Biofuel production (his EU project)
 10 y. medical applications, for different tissues, tumor cells
 long term bioremediation
#5
 5 year time frame: overcome agricultural hurdles, e.g. yield, utilization of biomass,
chemical engineering
 more than nanotechnology, which is naiv
 15 year time frame: nitrogen fixation by plants (engineered)
#6
 In an early stage, something like in the Keasling lab (artimisinin-malaria) microbial.
Based production of useful molecules, artimisinin and the like, production of small
biomolecules, e.g. for energy, liquid bio-fuels, hydrogen, realistic for the short term
5-10 years.
 More than 10 years from now: more directed on human health, interaction with larger
organisms (not so much small molecules) drug delivery, targeting of drugs,
#7
 Not an easy field, rather difficult, not much is understood in networking (genes) in
biological systems, if you change something what happens? Be rather realistic, many
dreams around, currently still many exercises (first steps)
 My point of view (chemical and medicine): reengineer bacterial systems to produce
interesting biological molecules, this is feasible on the short term, there are some
examples
#8
Very limited and personal view
5 yrs Aiming at understanding how e.g. photosynthesis works so the energy source
can be made of synthetic tools
#9
I don’t make predictions …too difficult. Nobody can predict the future in 15 years

#10
 5yrs biotechnology: modifying bacteria or fungi to perform some novel metabolic
pathways (production of energy, waste removal, novel vectors for research in
mammalian biology)
 15 yrs medical applications (for sure). Would be great to use it for gene therapy (if
that still exists). Engineered cells to reproduce some drugs etc.
#11


I don’t think synthetic biology will be really successful within the first 5 years. I am
not looking for any application in the literal sense.
15 yrs SB will vanish due to the lack to widespread application (there may be some
applications that I don’t know about). Not revolutionary in terms of applications, but
because of many concerted efforts, we will learn a lot about complex systems.
#12


5 yrs- establishing the conceptual framework- do we know what life is? e.g. why
does an artificial phage work less well?
15 yrs- maybe a (artificial) cell / or set of DNA to put inside cells
#13


5 yrs Synthesis of minimal living cells: understanding whether we need such
complexity in life as we have now?
15 yrs evolving systems capable of interacting cognitively with environment (loop to
evolution)
#14
Ones that are talked a lot about and that Biotech wants to deliver for the last 20 years , but
with SB we have a higher chance of doing so, e.g. CO2 neutral fuels, bioenergy, novel
chemical processes, novel polymers, novel compounds, drugs. But today there is a gap of
delivery of these new things.
BENEFITS:
Pragmatic ones: save time and money. 10 years from now, e.g. large scale manufacturing of
oxalic acid would be a very interesting process. Production of fine chemicals, bacteria that
does what we want it to do, try to have some demonstrator projects within the next 5-10
years.
Long term vision: tremendously difficult to say what is going to happen in the future.
Comparison to the people who first connected computers, they didn’t imagine that at some
point in the future the internet was going to come out of it.
The possibilities are tremendous, to use biology with rationality goes far beyond what we to
today. SB (the project SB) will have lot of impact (e.g. chemistry, energy, pharma) but it is
difficult to say.
#15

Now we are in the game state. We are developing parts, or bacteria that flash, that
become green, that become red. But for the moment the applications are limited to
metabolic engineering of biological entities that execute reactions that normal
systems don’t do. There is the success story of bacteria/ yeast that can produce
artimisinin (anti—Malaria)
 Main applications 1) remain to be seen and 2) to be materialized
 Now we study the potential.
 No difference in our life I the coming (5 maybe 10) years.
What are the general benefits?
 Biofuel production, ethanol, hydrogen, bioethanol. But intense discussion of
bioethanol diverting resources from food crops! Growing energy crops instead of
food crops could have negative effects on food security especially in poor countries.
 --> big challenge for SB: being able to come up with a solution, to convert cellulose
residues (straw, wood, leftovers from harvest) directly into ethanol. And avoiding
kidnapping food resources
 also: production of new material, valuable things, e.g. silk, plastics. Genetic design to
produce it. Great potential.

But be cautious. Expectation areraised very high. Been around long enough (since
70ties) to know that only part of the promises have been fulfilled. Community is
excited . but stick to data what can be done. Taken away be enthusiasm

#16


Difficult, well everything that needs the systemic approach and that needs a highly
regulated pathway, and its engineering E.g. in vivo in
o Medicine, regulation is very important (more than e.g. in white biotech where
you have one enzyme doing something). Production of pharmaceuticals
depending on the environment (context). E.g. Insulin production is highly
regulated. Also in
o Environmental technology, where you need sensoric characteristics, highly
differentiated switches (not just on/off)
o Detection (Nachweisreaktion) in vivo
In vitro:
o Complex biomolecules that can only be produced by biological systems
(because they are so complex). Or when you need pathways to generate
something (e.g. 5-6 enzymes on a nano bid (?))
#17
If anybody would know that, they would work on it! 5 yrs: organisms with a modified
chemistry at some level (DNA or protein). To see if the type of molecule life chose is
optimal or by accident. Will get novel pharmaceuticals, nucleic acids, amino-acid drugs,
natural chemical drugs. 15 yrs: ultimate question is what is life. We will be able to take
chemical off the shelves and put them together to get an entity that grows, can divide and
possibly also evolve, would then fulfil most of the criteria we associate with life.
#18
5 yrs: we assemble various building blocks in cell lines, screen monoclonal anti-bodies.
Might lead to maybe therapeutics. We are learning, that we can harvest the power of the
synthesis machine to make bacteria and cells to “do something”. Library of different
molecules, DNA molecules can already be synthesised. This would work with other building
blocks as well, then screen for a novel enzyme

15 yrs solve our energy problems in the future
5 yrs: design of an organism that performs functions that are not normally performed by
other existing organisms, e.g. produce large quantities of hydrogen or mop up some toxins.
Borderline of BE. Put together genomes like Venter application

15 yrs: applications which make use of components of living systems interfaced
with solid state devices, e.g. provide onboard power sources for micro-devices, are
likely to be the real applications, because they will have the facility of being robust of
being able of self-repair, which is not available to organic systems at the moment.
#20 5 yrs: synthesis of chemical compounds using bacteria, remediation, at least in small
scale. Theoretical: experimental one see Venter, chromosome synthesis like we have oligosynthesis. Simulating and engineering tools. No big bio-revolution theoretically.
ETHICS
3. What do you think are the most important ethical issues related to synthetic biology, if
any?
#1





Don’t really see other than general ethical issues in science. The use of SB
technology per se not poses additional issue.
Working with gene like in nature, no special ethical issues,
Depends on applications, ethic and common sense
No new ethical issues, technology can be misused
Bioterrorism and associated ethics, already there. The ethical questions are the same
now applied to this field.
#2
The greatest problem, which has important ethical issues, is the availability of cassette-like
biological systems, and the additional information on the internet, which may allow
the easy production of dangerous and even lethal biological constructs and associated
delivery systems.
#3
a) As in traditional engineering, but probably much more, the ethical issue raised by the
possibility of building new cellular entities or species.
b) The capacity to intervene in the nature of biological entities, under the framework of
SB, will be of greater impact than classical genetic engineering. In this field we
slightly modify a given organism by introducing a given gene or set of genes. With
SB we will move to implementing in a given cell more and more complicated
biological circuits and, finally, we will address the possibility of building a cell.
c) If we are able to build a cell: what will be our status? Scientists? Creators?
#4
 Short term: related to safety and security
 Cell: the human cell, similar debate to stem cell, maybe some ethical issues
 For the moment no big issues, issues already handled by other debates, enough
control in the medical community
#5
 Only one: No application for human genome manipulation, this is the only important
one.
 Preserve natural habitat, prevent genetic pollution
#6
 difficult question. Wholesale change to genome, creating life to do something useful,
not aware of all consequences. Cross over of higher and lower organisms, maybe
some problems (also safety) , mess around with stem cells could be a problem when
close to human life. Not clear what will be done
#7
 Starts to talk about the “xxxxx” project he is working with xxxxx, chemistry and
boil. Eng., the idea started out of the GMOs debate: gene flow, control question, xxxx
does synthetic biology with non-natural molecules but that have the same function.
Interaction (between synthetic and natural) with no problems, circumvent problems in
ethics and safety
 Most SB work done with bacteria, but not many ethical issues involved in bacteria,
therefore no problem, but different situation with higher animals (e.g. stem cells)
 Not see so many ethical issues personally
 Synthesis of Human DNA it is an ethical problem
 As long as being used in bacteria, no problems, in humans it would be at the level of
gene therapy, stem cell biology, then you have the same problems
 Not the technology, but the application matters (whether it is an ethical problem or
not)
#8
There are some: translation form systems and genomic biology. Cannot be sure that the
information we are using to build up the system are completely harmless. could come
from anthrax organisms. Main concerns biosafety and biosecurity. In favour of control of
this information, how effective I don’t know. Big effort to make, do not accidentally use
“wrong” information. We are of course not at the level of organism, so e.g the stem cells
issues etc. does not apply to my field but these concerns are not special to SB.
#9
I would not claim any important ethical issues at present. Partly due to the lack of ability
to predict….no other than usual: safety, misuse etc issues. Not like stem cells…but that
can change of course.
#10
Yes of course there are ethical questions. We will need ethical committees to approve
 the creation of synthetic organisms (what purpose of these ?) to approve each project.
how we can control the organism etc. and why we are doing this. This is needed both
for the public (Frankenstein factor) and also because we are modifying something we
don’t understand yet. We need to be careful
#11

not asked
#12


Have heard many worries about re-constructing life etc.: I actually think artificial is
dangerous. Worry is regarding misuse and abuse
Is this a new approach to life? What would be interesting is if we put the concept of
biology into computers: computers making computers!
#13


We have to be very very careful about modifying existing forms of life (disturbing,
modifying, transforming). Do not oppose it as a matter of principle but we need a
committee to say yes or no to certain things (you only need one crazy scientist)
Regarding the involvement of the private sector: it is surprising how much investing
is taking place. Partly fashionable idea- to make lots of money through pharma,
energy etc.
#14
Referred to previous answer(s)
#15
 Ethics: we can keep on discussing, but I thing it is not terribly important.
 However I see one major issue in synbio: Intellectual property rights! Synbio is s
production of western rich nations (US; EU, Japan, little bit China) but synbo can
have benefits for the whole world. We need serious reflection. But this is , however,
not specific to Synbio. Patets are kept in western systems. We have to make sure the
technology benefits everyone. (What happens if IP would be ignored in 3rd world
countries?)
 IP could limit innovation, 20 years ago much easier for a scientist Today you have to
sign 100 papers, to make sure that whenever a benefit arises… (See- research
exemption!) This is contra-productive! Sooner or later we have to change that.
#16


Ethics means Misuse
Cell differentiation, cell systems, creation of strange new animals by interchanging
the homeo-boxes of insects and mammals, creation of segmented mammals. Dogs
with 6 legs. This could trigger the reaction of humans.

Talks about stem cells and how good they are to treat humans, but people don’t want
them for ethical reasons.
#17
Ethics really comes into play if SB is applied to human cells/tissue, who owns such cells etc.
Not quite sure if stems cells are part of SB…? But issues would disappear if not ESC
(embryonic). Nothing as such within the next 5 yrs. Most of the cases it is an extension of
GE and Mol. Bio practised before with application of engineering, with genomics we have a
wider variety of components available. Security is also covered by existing frameworks.
#18
I don’t envision…apart from maybe religious people, e.g. novel synthetic organism
(something that God should do), not really an ethical problem for me.
#19
Some activities are equated by some parts of the population as creating life (not saying
correct or incorrect), need to carry out such activities in a responsible manner against the
background of this perception is going to raise some ethical challenges. This has to be
handled sensitively rather than in a regulated form.
#20
not to engineering molecules to do something nasty. Apart from the religious view (even that
is not so important). So only worry is about release to do something nasty (intended release).
4. Can you foresee any ethical issues with the creation of artificial systems, such as
novel genes, bacteria or organisms?
#1

No, No ethical issues related to that
#2
Refered to previous answer
#3
Absolutely. Abounding in my last comment, humans have an increasing capacity to nature
intervention and, of course, self-intervention. We are progressively moving from the area of
‘we understand how nature works’ toward ‘we not only understand but are also able to
change it more and more’ or ‘we are also in position to create new natures’. As creators we
will have the ethical responsibility to delimitate what and what not should be ‘created’. If, in
the Western tradition, God has have ethical responsibilities on the nature of things He has
created, imagine ours as ‘Creator Beginner’s”
#4
 Creating ethical issues: how do we sell that?
 Difference between creating life (which will trigger a reaction) vs. creating self
replicating biological complex entities (machines)
#5
 New diseases, more difficult (to combat)
 But answer is: NO. look at domestication of mammals, which is on a deeper level
comparable.
 There are not so much ethical issues, but more metaphysical and philosophical issues
arising
#6
 humans have been creating life before, not first time, but now some more significant
changes, big grey area, not sure what ethical issues are, how is it different from things
done before? (some things are not, but now more rapidly and more rational changes).
when is it correct (benefits)?
#7


bacteria: no,
higher organisms: be careful
#8
Referred to previous answer(s)
#9
 No, those will be in the foreseeable future so low among life forms that it will take
quite a while until we can construct something that is comparable in complexity to a
single cell and I don’t see any ethical issues with single cells, except that it is a single
cell with human DNA.
 I know Craig Venter is trying to make a simple bacterium…no ethical issues with
that, no problems.
 SB is not so much about creating some living systems, but using the machines,
proteins, for a different purpose make drug, drug delivery. This will come out of SB.
But not things that will have ethical issues.
#10
 the process has to be supervised and controlled. Something that needs to happen. One
has to be cautious
#11
 Novel genes in themselves are not living. Bacteria and organisms yes of course.
 Depends on what we mean by living. The more “living” it is…the more concern. If
you have something “living” only under very stringent conditions, you have to ask
yourself whether this is good or bad (ethics). But then again I don’t believe we’ll get
there (e.g. organism developing their own will). Important but hypothetical question.
#12
 Not different from any other artificial objects. Part of what man does
 We may now get living organisms with different codons etc. We might want to reflect
on the way we (should) occupy the earth.
 The nature of man is to be artificial , to escape the natural. There are no new ethical
questions. If there is question of patenting, patenting has to involve inventing
#13
 Bioethical issues will arise. We cannot expect to have a field with new life and ignore
bioethical aspects. We need to avoid fundamentalism one way or another. Those who
are opposed to it might be ignorant but should be taken into account.
#14
 Referred to previous answer(s)
#15
 Referred to previous answer(s)
#16
 The only question is the one of uncontrollability, fear stems from not being able to
control things.
 SB answers to this as a way to design things more accurately. Synbio is the quest for
higher controllability, e.g . it can provide containment for metabolism. That way
sybio is the answer to the fears.
 Synbio is totally harmless, it is the solution to all problematic questions (of
uncontrollability)

#17
not genes, sequencing genome has show how plastic it is, this goes on in nature all the time.
New organism: animal breeding has been around for a long time (see some existing breeds of
dogs and cats). So there are ethical dilemmas but they are not new.
#18
Referred to previous answer(s)
#19
no (Referred to previous answer(s))
#20
no (Referred to previous answer(s))
5. Do you see any ethical issues related to the interaction between “natural” and synthetic
life forms?
#1



Not more than e.g. hypothetical cloning,
baseline: SB per se no additional ethical or security issues
Depends on applications and control, “unexpectibility”, there is a rational design
behind, but we don’t know all emerging properties, this is more of a risk
assessment issues
#2
The unpredictable nature of natural selection and hostile environments may produce
unexpected outcomes through fusion of natural and artificial systems.
#3
Yes, a lot. The issue is not different between the potential conflict between natural entities
and robots, although at lower extent. We can design a synthetic life form able to outcompete
natural ones. If we systematically proceed, in the near future, with new synthetic life forms,
better ‘designed’ than natural ones to work in specific environments and/or circumstances,
we must consider both, the right to do it (ie., the replacement of natural biodiversity with
synthetic one), and the environmental and biomedical consequences on it. I told you that in
SB we eventually will be able to build a cell and to perfectly know the precise behaviour of
the synthetic cellular system, but I’m not sure we will be able to predict the consequences or
impact of such new system when freely liberated to the environment.
#4
No more ethical issues (than elsewhere), see e.g. Alisaster, an algae that escaped from the
aquarium into the Mediterranean sea. Invasive species similar to synthetic organisms (but
synthetic are less adapted, have to compete for survival)
#5
 No, but have to be conscious about,
 Technical prevention of “cross talk”
#6
 Interactions, as long as it is in the laboratory not so much of a problem (confined)
 But when released into the environment: we don’t know the interactions that will
be.
#7
 What we would like is to avoid that out of biosafety reasons, not so much ethical
issues
 Currently production of proteins, using recombinant DNA
 Better if done by a parallel world, that does not interact with natural world, there
should be two different systems
#8
You are completely right but we are so far away. It is an issue. The moment you are able to
create a synthetic organism, critical ethical issues. Don’t see it a the moment, think about it in
10 years. Don’t kill SB by thinking of something so far away! #9
Referred to previous answer(s)
#10



We have the technology in place (precautions) to make sure this does not happen.
We have been doing this for ages now…just the normal rules that apply to labs.
Also these organisms are not pathogenic.
But if there are released in the environment as an application, e.g. removal of
waste…there are preventive methods…an external ethical committee can decide
whether we can do it or not
#11

Not more than is already the case. As I said the world is full of synthetic
organisms (dogs, etc.). If you detach synthetic from whatever now in SB is ….
(the case??)

Artificial: dangers are fewer. We know more and can control more

We are in a new area (new form of life). Safety is a less of a problem. There may
be concern of lay people facing the idea of new life being created (especially from
a religious point of view)
#12
#13
#14

Referred to previous answer(s)
#15

Referred to previous answer(s)
#16

There are not going to be artificial life forms. The probability is too low. OK you
have evolving RNA and the minimal life experiments by Luisi but LIFE is not
going to be produced by them. Can not produce it outside of life (only
modification but not de novo)
 Transgenic maize for example could have some unpleasant characteristics but it is
not very dramatic.
Development like with chemistry. Only useful things, not damage, it is a “tool”. You can
even use nerve gas to produce some useful polymers, intelligent rules, use it meaningful,
like a stone that can be used to make fire or hit someone in the head.
#17
No ethical questions but we should make them so that they cannot survive outside lab
(safety issue), most organisms will be like that anyway (just can’t survive outside
#18
Once again , maybe just safety problems, I don’t see any other problems
#19
Yes, This is where there are serious issues that that need to address. Interaction with
ecosystem at an unprecedented scale.
#20
release …the same as what we are doing with GMOs, we need to check … same kind
safety measures, controls.
6. Have you encountered similar ethics debates regarding earlier technologies? Which
ones?
#1
Many examples: GMOs, nuclear energy, stem cells, all kind of these discussion could
be similar, essential the same question behind all these debates
#2
Genetic modification of organisms. Bionanotechnology.
#3
Yes, when talking about the release of genetically modified organisms to
environment. However, the issue will be of higher ethic impact when we release full
synthetic organisms
#4
GE, Asilomar, stem cell, but not familiar with it.
#5





Yes, the civil (use of) nuclear technology. There confinement issues were taken
into account. Non-proliferation act (for military use): should be similar for SB
Technology is helping the world, I trust technology
But: What is experimented should be discussed. Like a panel of people that
should discuss that
Asilomar: I don’t trust them, they were political bodies, was used as a self voting
enterprise
There should not be self regulation, scientists are not more moral than e.g. taxi
drivers (or whatever)
#6




GM crop debate intense in the past, some people don’t like the idea, synthetic
organisms is worse, because of more radical changes
(embryonic) stem cells (ethics behind it, especially in the US), human stem cells
cloning, dolly the sheep, cloning plants, animals
Asilomar (heard about it, but doesn’t know it)
#7
Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA, might be very close
#8
I come from the green GM background eg GM debate. This is what happened in
Germany. Of course you can talk about it but the debate turned in such a way that the
whole research was stopped, now you can’t even talk about it. The press was
somehow killing the whole field by giving the wrong information. So you can discuss
about issues that are existing now. I hope this will not happen again.
#9
Not really…my background is theoretical physics… so I haven’t followed this closely
Mentions stem cells which he has observed as an outsider.
#10
 Similar but GM debate was in the public. The larger public does not know about
SB yet. These issues have to be solved before…it goes to the public to prevent a
GM-like debate.
#11
 Yes of course, Basel, Biocenter Prof. Gehring didn’t get the Nobel prize, but…lot
of attention with flies that grow legs instead of antenna. Easy to publish on
BBC…. students hated and criticised him would you like to have instead of
eyebrowns fingers…ethical issue.
 Because of that a position was created for ethical issues at the Biocenter. Should
become part of the normal…discussion in this field.
#12
Public reacts in different ways: somehow GM animals are more worrying that GM
food but people will react in the opposite way. I doubt that the public is really that
concerned. Controversy is usually created by lobbies, not the general audience. The
main problem is not what is done but how—this kind of research is usually done by
profit driven companies
#13
This is a new modern form of genetic engineering. We might have insurgence of
reactionary groups bound to creationism, intelligent design, who might be powerful
politically speaking.
#14
GE debate was very similar
#15
GE, many others (uses a analogy with pain killers and anesthetics from the past)
#16



Stemcells, also chemistry (harmful for health), Gentechnology, nuclear energy
Talks about general ethical aspects: Shall men do everything that he can? Question
since Renaissance (Aufklärung). What God has only given to man.The brain is a
computer. Maintain positive things for our species
Technology has always been questioned and challenged, like a hydroelectric damm,
flying to the moon (some said men should not go to the moon, we are not god).
Religious believes. It is a fundamental inclination to technology. Like in nuclear
energy and the climate change CO2 discussion . UK will build new power stations.
Produces a conflict in Germany: Green-mania (Grünheitswahn)
#17
most relevant is Asilomar, much less was know then about the consequences might be of
starting to hold such a genetic info. We didn’t know to what extent nature does it anyway.
GM is different : there is a difference between what you would give to your children to eat,
and making a potentially life-saving drug that requires some manipulation. This is why there
was so much resistance. Would not have been a problem if the first GM plant was created to
produce a cancer drug. Tomato easier to transport (frivolous)
#18
There are similarities with GM Rec. DNA etc. Same issues
#19
GM crops in Europe, especially UK. Debates on cloning, Artificial insemination, which are
not at least in the UK legislated or regulated by HFEA (human embryonic and fertilization
association)
#20
no answer