Annotated Bibliography
Bonin, Sergio. "Challenges To Biosecurity From Advances In The Life Sciences." UN Chronicle No.2 (2013): 25-28. Print. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute conducted a risk assessment project in an attempt to identify the biosecurity dangers that could possibly be developing simultaneously with the development of synthetic biology and nanotechnology. They found that the necessary man power, knowledge and skills needed to assess and implement any type of policy for the purpose of establishing an effective biosecurity system was by far more complex than they had imagined. In his summary of his finding s in this report Bonin argues that it is because of this level of complexity that an early initiative in assessing the security policies was needed to be performed at the same time that the beneficial applications of the field continued without being hindered by current policy. Supporting his argument he explains this is necessary because the biggest problem being faced by law enforcement are the amateur biologists and biohackers who are conducting their research outside of a supervised and regulated research environment. Another very important observation he makes is that as synthetic biology continued to simplify and decrease the complexity of genetic engineering the threat would only increase alongside it. This though he states should not stop or hinder the development of the field because solutions could arise from the continued research and development. In closing Bonin emphasis that the dangers posed by biological weapons is great but something that can be dealt with if everyone pitches in to establish a web of prevention through actively involving interested parties and supporting the understanding that everyone has the power to detect and report any potential threats. I found Bonin’s insight in regards to this summary to be very crucial material in supplying reasons as to why establishing some kind of interactive supervision is needed in helping provide security for all.
Brown, Chappell. “ Amateur ‘Biomarkers’ Could Pose a Serious Threat.” Biological Weapons. Ed. Clay Farris Naff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from “ Experts: Synthetic Biology Mat Spawn Biohackers.” Electronic Engineering Times (28 June 2004): 45. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Chappell Brown argues that as biotechnology furthers aids the development of the synthetic biology field the dangers increase. He presents the possibility that as automated systems facilitate manipulation of genetic codes biohackers will use this knowledge in the same way computer hacker’s use but instead of the worrying about electronic viruses on the internet we would be facing deadly artificial life forms. Since there is no way to immunize the population against this threat he presents an idea that is circulating amongst experts in and related to the field. The suggestion is to create a system two systems working in unison. One is similar in purpose as the DMV. An individual would submit a request for a license to conduct research in which they would supply details concerning the projects. This then would be screened by the second system a tracking with a data base containing the genetic code break down of DNA. The research project would have than been cataloged and could be tracked because the researchers would have to upload their progress in order to keep their license. Brown really touches into what I think is an excellent idea for establishing a proactive security screening system. The idea he presents will definitely support my argument of how we could regulate the field of synthetic biology through establishing a set standard for all.
Conant, Jeff. "Weird." Earth Island Journal (2012): 18-23. Print. Airplanes that are fuled by algae harvested oil, patented engineered bacteria that disposes of crude oil, and lab created artemisa for immunization against malaria, these are amongst the present day innovations made possible today by synthetic biology according to the author. He describes how this field has already made progress but even with the progress and the finacial gain it has offered in the ecomomic sector he says that these are just small scale discoveries that have not actually contributed anything beneficial to society except big idea that have no concrete results. Building on this he describes iGEM (international genetically engineered machine) a world wide competition in which student ranging from high school and beyond compete in creating artificial organisms. Information gathered here is than shared with a company called Bio Bricks who sells these standardized DNA sequences online to whomever wants them. However all this activity draws the attention of civil society groups who raise the concern that all this development is posing a very real threat to public health and the environment. This interest and economic growth in the field has hence increased so the public's and government attention on the matter. Developing on this he presents that fact that in 2010 President Obama establishes the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) in attempt to assess the current state and problems posed by this emerging field of science. Whom Mr. Conant writes ends up just being a big joke because it does not offer any real solutions to the risks posed.In conclusion he states that the threat will increase but not be addressed as it should be because of oversights in favor of the economic growth it offers individuals. Much of the material he covers is supported by good quality examples. The only issue I found with the article is the fact that he does not really go into detail of what in the PCSBI was what drew the reaction that he did. All in all the quality of information provided was good and I’d like to build on some of the points he made.
Dorit, Rob. “Making Life From Scratch.” American Scientist 101.5 (2013): 342. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Dorit opens the article with the example of Deep Blue an AI (artificial intelligence) computer and Grand Master chess player Garry Kasporov chess match of 1997, where for the first time in AI history an AI accomplishes the feat of defeating human. This is important because from here he presents the argument that for the same reasons Kasporovs defeat is not because AI’s are now capable of replicating human thought similarly in synthetic biology creation of artificial machines cannot be considered similar to actually replicating real life. In support of this he describes the two methods in current use for creating these biological organisms. The first method Dorit presents is known as bottom-up or de-nemo by which they seek to synthesize new kinds of cells from scratch. On the opposite end is method two known as top-down strategy because here the goal is to produce new organisms based on a list of existing molecular parts. Using these methods and a brief background of how they work he states that both of these fail at their intended purpose because very little is still known as to how and what principles govern living organisms as it is without first building up on the history of the organisms themselves. In closing he refers to back to Deep Blue commenting that what was achieved by this venture was a better understanding of the power of the human mind which in turn if we view the knowledge gained thru synthetic biology in the same context we will just be achieving a higher understanding of just how complex organisms in our environment are without actually being to reproduce them. The real life scenarios used here and the context exemplified here will be of great use as an example of how I need to present some of the more complex ideas I’m trying to get across to my readers.
Draxler, Breanna. "Life as We Grow It: The Promises and Perils of Synthetic Biology." Discover Magazine 28 December 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. The natural evolution of
Lauritzen, Paul. “Humming with mystery: synthetic biology & playing God.” Commonweal 138.7 (2011): 13+. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) had been established my the President but not actually proactive in performing its duties until the introduction to the world of Synthia by Craig Venter. Synthia was the first living organism that could boast having a completely synthetic genome put together by computer software. The implications raised It immediately brought to forefront the concerns that if such great benefits could be expected from synthetic biology also great harmful potential was not far behind. Building on this Lauritzen argues that what the PCSBI found and recommended to President Obama could actually be placed into use now in helping thwart the threat, more specifically though he concentrates on just two of the five principles presented in the report. Responsible stewardship and democratic deliberation these two religious in nature a considerations related more to his field of expertise. The PCSBI concerns were as follows, synthetic biology, “may conflict with essential conceptions of human agency and life when it promotes a sense of limitless human powers,” and that it “may fail to respect the proper relationship between humans and nature by tempting us to ignore the risks to other species and the environment posed by engineering new life forms.” He states that here it is being inferred that ‘Playing God’ term usage is out of the question because of the religious concerns it raises and that by trying to push for responsible development it would achieve the goal of pacifying the religious that so long as everything was being accomplished in a considerate manner the benefits and side effects were balanced. By addressing these two scenarios through the implementation of responsible stewardship and democratic deliberation he says we will be able to continue developing the field while minimizing harm from a religious perspective. I found this theological approach to such a scientific problem to be enlightening and I feel it will help develop a better rounded argument and essay because of this.
Murray, Thomas H. “Interests, identities, and synthetic biology.” The Hastings Center Report July-Aug. 2011:3+. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Instead of center. Instead of centering on all the same repetitive material that is covered over and over in many of the articles published Murray here instead approaches why the individuals themselves cannot reach a consensus as to how to approach and deal with the situation as whole. Concentrating on how individuals should instead should view the context he observes the primary complications are the disputes themselves because one in actually a dispute of interest and the other is a dispute of identity. Murray reveals that disputes of interest center more around whose interest and rights will be protected and whose will not, while disputes of identity are more about core beliefs and an individual’s place in society. He asserts that due to parties involved not being on similar ground as to what they are disputing they cannot hope to reach any type of mutual understanding. Keeping this in mind and alongside with a sense of humility and respect for nature he deems that the arguments can become more fruitful in the future. This was a breath of fresh air amongst so much monotony I must say. Reading this helped me step outside of the cycle everyone was caught in and catch what else was causing problems in establishing ethical standards.
Noble, Ronald K. “Keeping Science In the Right Hands.” Foreign Affairs 92.6 (2013): 47. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Synthetic biology is the biggest issue faced by international law enforcement and the. This article argues that even though synthetic biology promises to bring about many beneficial uses that fact reality still remains that equally in existence is the harm that can come of it. Adding to this problem is the fact that there are no international regulations in existence to address these issues. Because of this as a solution the article presents the concept that law enforcement worldwide, learn how to gauge future threats and mitigate them and prepare in the event they fail to do in time. Providing some historical background on the development of other similar fields it clearly outlines that a threat is but one step away from the present and all that is needed is someone just motivated enough to do it or someone not paying close enough attention to make an irreversible mistake. From here it presents the means as how to get this world wide effort started by for getting an active line of communication going through funding a forum into they all can tap to. This forum would then aid in providing instant up to date information of how they are tracking, dealing and preventing biohackers and other biosecurity threats from threatening the general population. The article closes with stating that the need for partnerships in all areas concerning the field are needed if the threats are to be dealt with accordingly. This argument presented from the enforcement side of the issue aided in helping understand how they view and have commenced addressing the problems. This will be of most use when I try to explain and convey how the ethical standards I propose to set in place can be put in effect by governing entities.
“Presidential Panel Scrutinizes Synthetic Biology.” Talk of the Nation: Science Friday July 9 July 2010. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. In this live interview of George Church director of the Personal Genome Project and professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston and radio host Ira Flow from NPR News, speak about the possible implications presented by The Presidents Commission on Bioethical Issues in regards to the developmental control of the growing field known as synthetic biology. A known advocate for the further development of the field Church argues that the uses and beneficial possibilities of the field far out way the negative and possible dangerous scenarios that could take place. Ms. Flow then inquires as to what is the main issue the presidential commission is trying to address and find a solution to. Church answers that the goal of the commission is to bring the public into the discussion and establish a similar ethical standard of behavior across the board for any researcher involved in the field. Reading this article has aided in giving me an insight as to how the researchers active in the development view their work and how they respond when questioned. This will help me in describing why it is so difficult for mutual agreement to be reached when trying to establish a set standard of ethical regulations across the board.
Brown, Chappell. “ Amateur ‘Biomarkers’ Could Pose a Serious Threat.” Biological Weapons. Ed. Clay Farris Naff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from “ Experts: Synthetic Biology Mat Spawn Biohackers.” Electronic Engineering Times (28 June 2004): 45. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Chappell Brown argues that as biotechnology furthers aids the development of the synthetic biology field the dangers increase. He presents the possibility that as automated systems facilitate manipulation of genetic codes biohackers will use this knowledge in the same way computer hacker’s use but instead of the worrying about electronic viruses on the internet we would be facing deadly artificial life forms. Since there is no way to immunize the population against this threat he presents an idea that is circulating amongst experts in and related to the field. The suggestion is to create a system two systems working in unison. One is similar in purpose as the DMV. An individual would submit a request for a license to conduct research in which they would supply details concerning the projects. This then would be screened by the second system a tracking with a data base containing the genetic code break down of DNA. The research project would have than been cataloged and could be tracked because the researchers would have to upload their progress in order to keep their license. Brown really touches into what I think is an excellent idea for establishing a proactive security screening system. The idea he presents will definitely support my argument of how we could regulate the field of synthetic biology through establishing a set standard for all.
Conant, Jeff. "Weird." Earth Island Journal (2012): 18-23. Print. Airplanes that are fuled by algae harvested oil, patented engineered bacteria that disposes of crude oil, and lab created artemisa for immunization against malaria, these are amongst the present day innovations made possible today by synthetic biology according to the author. He describes how this field has already made progress but even with the progress and the finacial gain it has offered in the ecomomic sector he says that these are just small scale discoveries that have not actually contributed anything beneficial to society except big idea that have no concrete results. Building on this he describes iGEM (international genetically engineered machine) a world wide competition in which student ranging from high school and beyond compete in creating artificial organisms. Information gathered here is than shared with a company called Bio Bricks who sells these standardized DNA sequences online to whomever wants them. However all this activity draws the attention of civil society groups who raise the concern that all this development is posing a very real threat to public health and the environment. This interest and economic growth in the field has hence increased so the public's and government attention on the matter. Developing on this he presents that fact that in 2010 President Obama establishes the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) in attempt to assess the current state and problems posed by this emerging field of science. Whom Mr. Conant writes ends up just being a big joke because it does not offer any real solutions to the risks posed.In conclusion he states that the threat will increase but not be addressed as it should be because of oversights in favor of the economic growth it offers individuals. Much of the material he covers is supported by good quality examples. The only issue I found with the article is the fact that he does not really go into detail of what in the PCSBI was what drew the reaction that he did. All in all the quality of information provided was good and I’d like to build on some of the points he made.
Dorit, Rob. “Making Life From Scratch.” American Scientist 101.5 (2013): 342. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Dorit opens the article with the example of Deep Blue an AI (artificial intelligence) computer and Grand Master chess player Garry Kasporov chess match of 1997, where for the first time in AI history an AI accomplishes the feat of defeating human. This is important because from here he presents the argument that for the same reasons Kasporovs defeat is not because AI’s are now capable of replicating human thought similarly in synthetic biology creation of artificial machines cannot be considered similar to actually replicating real life. In support of this he describes the two methods in current use for creating these biological organisms. The first method Dorit presents is known as bottom-up or de-nemo by which they seek to synthesize new kinds of cells from scratch. On the opposite end is method two known as top-down strategy because here the goal is to produce new organisms based on a list of existing molecular parts. Using these methods and a brief background of how they work he states that both of these fail at their intended purpose because very little is still known as to how and what principles govern living organisms as it is without first building up on the history of the organisms themselves. In closing he refers to back to Deep Blue commenting that what was achieved by this venture was a better understanding of the power of the human mind which in turn if we view the knowledge gained thru synthetic biology in the same context we will just be achieving a higher understanding of just how complex organisms in our environment are without actually being to reproduce them. The real life scenarios used here and the context exemplified here will be of great use as an example of how I need to present some of the more complex ideas I’m trying to get across to my readers.
Draxler, Breanna. "Life as We Grow It: The Promises and Perils of Synthetic Biology." Discover Magazine 28 December 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. The natural evolution of
Lauritzen, Paul. “Humming with mystery: synthetic biology & playing God.” Commonweal 138.7 (2011): 13+. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) had been established my the President but not actually proactive in performing its duties until the introduction to the world of Synthia by Craig Venter. Synthia was the first living organism that could boast having a completely synthetic genome put together by computer software. The implications raised It immediately brought to forefront the concerns that if such great benefits could be expected from synthetic biology also great harmful potential was not far behind. Building on this Lauritzen argues that what the PCSBI found and recommended to President Obama could actually be placed into use now in helping thwart the threat, more specifically though he concentrates on just two of the five principles presented in the report. Responsible stewardship and democratic deliberation these two religious in nature a considerations related more to his field of expertise. The PCSBI concerns were as follows, synthetic biology, “may conflict with essential conceptions of human agency and life when it promotes a sense of limitless human powers,” and that it “may fail to respect the proper relationship between humans and nature by tempting us to ignore the risks to other species and the environment posed by engineering new life forms.” He states that here it is being inferred that ‘Playing God’ term usage is out of the question because of the religious concerns it raises and that by trying to push for responsible development it would achieve the goal of pacifying the religious that so long as everything was being accomplished in a considerate manner the benefits and side effects were balanced. By addressing these two scenarios through the implementation of responsible stewardship and democratic deliberation he says we will be able to continue developing the field while minimizing harm from a religious perspective. I found this theological approach to such a scientific problem to be enlightening and I feel it will help develop a better rounded argument and essay because of this.
Murray, Thomas H. “Interests, identities, and synthetic biology.” The Hastings Center Report July-Aug. 2011:3+. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Instead of center. Instead of centering on all the same repetitive material that is covered over and over in many of the articles published Murray here instead approaches why the individuals themselves cannot reach a consensus as to how to approach and deal with the situation as whole. Concentrating on how individuals should instead should view the context he observes the primary complications are the disputes themselves because one in actually a dispute of interest and the other is a dispute of identity. Murray reveals that disputes of interest center more around whose interest and rights will be protected and whose will not, while disputes of identity are more about core beliefs and an individual’s place in society. He asserts that due to parties involved not being on similar ground as to what they are disputing they cannot hope to reach any type of mutual understanding. Keeping this in mind and alongside with a sense of humility and respect for nature he deems that the arguments can become more fruitful in the future. This was a breath of fresh air amongst so much monotony I must say. Reading this helped me step outside of the cycle everyone was caught in and catch what else was causing problems in establishing ethical standards.
Noble, Ronald K. “Keeping Science In the Right Hands.” Foreign Affairs 92.6 (2013): 47. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Synthetic biology is the biggest issue faced by international law enforcement and the. This article argues that even though synthetic biology promises to bring about many beneficial uses that fact reality still remains that equally in existence is the harm that can come of it. Adding to this problem is the fact that there are no international regulations in existence to address these issues. Because of this as a solution the article presents the concept that law enforcement worldwide, learn how to gauge future threats and mitigate them and prepare in the event they fail to do in time. Providing some historical background on the development of other similar fields it clearly outlines that a threat is but one step away from the present and all that is needed is someone just motivated enough to do it or someone not paying close enough attention to make an irreversible mistake. From here it presents the means as how to get this world wide effort started by for getting an active line of communication going through funding a forum into they all can tap to. This forum would then aid in providing instant up to date information of how they are tracking, dealing and preventing biohackers and other biosecurity threats from threatening the general population. The article closes with stating that the need for partnerships in all areas concerning the field are needed if the threats are to be dealt with accordingly. This argument presented from the enforcement side of the issue aided in helping understand how they view and have commenced addressing the problems. This will be of most use when I try to explain and convey how the ethical standards I propose to set in place can be put in effect by governing entities.
“Presidential Panel Scrutinizes Synthetic Biology.” Talk of the Nation: Science Friday July 9 July 2010. Opposing View Points In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. In this live interview of George Church director of the Personal Genome Project and professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston and radio host Ira Flow from NPR News, speak about the possible implications presented by The Presidents Commission on Bioethical Issues in regards to the developmental control of the growing field known as synthetic biology. A known advocate for the further development of the field Church argues that the uses and beneficial possibilities of the field far out way the negative and possible dangerous scenarios that could take place. Ms. Flow then inquires as to what is the main issue the presidential commission is trying to address and find a solution to. Church answers that the goal of the commission is to bring the public into the discussion and establish a similar ethical standard of behavior across the board for any researcher involved in the field. Reading this article has aided in giving me an insight as to how the researchers active in the development view their work and how they respond when questioned. This will help me in describing why it is so difficult for mutual agreement to be reached when trying to establish a set standard of ethical regulations across the board.