Navigating the 'moral hazard' argument in synthetic biology's application.

Synthetic biology has immense potential to ameliorate widespread environmental damage. The promise of such technology could, however, be argued to potentially risk the public, industry or governments not curtailing their environmentally damaging behavior or even worse exploit the possibility of this technology to do further damage. In such cases, there is the risk of a worse outcome than if the technology was not deployed. This risk is often couched as an objection to new technologies, that the technology produces a moral hazard. This paper describes how to navigate a moral hazard argument and mitigate the possibility of a moral hazard. Navigating moral hazard arguments and mitigating the possibility of a moral hazard will improve the public and environmental impact of synthetic biology.

Ethical and social insights into synthetic biology: predicting research fronts in the post-COVID-19 era.

As a revolutionary biological science and technology, synthetic biology has already spread its influence from natural sciences to humanities and social sciences by introducing biosafety, biosecurity, and ethical issues to society. The current study aims to elaborate the intellectual bases and research front of the synthetic biology field in the sphere of philosophy, ethics, and social sciences, with knowledge mapping and bibliometric methods. The literature records from the Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1982 to 2021 were collected and analyzed to illustrate the intellectual structure of philosophical, ethical, and social research of synthetic biology. This study profiled the hotspots of research focus on its governance, philosophical and ethical concerns, and relevant technologies. This study offers clues and enlightenment for the stakeholders and researchers to follow the progress of this emerging discipline and technology and to understand the cutting-edge ideas and future form of this field, which takes on greater significance in the post-COVID-19 era.

Playing God? Religious Perspectives on Manipulating the Genome.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is a remarkable medical science breakthrough that enables the understanding of genetics and the intervention of human health. An individual's health is influenced by physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and religious factors. Among these, religious beliefs shape our thinking on cloning, stem cells, and gene editing, affecting healthcare decisions and the motivation for seeking treatment. Is the human genome sacred? Does editing it violate the idea that we're made in God's image or allow us to "play God"? Understanding the perspectives behind the fundamental religious doctrines of Islam, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist on gene editing/therapy in somatic and germline cells would ensure a right balance between geneticists and theologians in providing the best healthcare while catering to individual beliefs.

How to Play the "Playing God" Card.

When the phrase "playing God" is used in debates concerning the use of new technologies, such as cloning or genetic engineering, it is usually interpreted as a warning not to interfere with God's creation or nature. I think that this interpretation of "playing God" arguments as a call to non-interference with nature is too narrow. In this paper, I propose an alternative interpretation of "playing God" arguments. Taking an argumentation theory approach, I provide an argumentation scheme and accompanying critical questions that capture the moral concerns expressed by "playing God" arguments. If I am right, then "playing God" arguments should be understood, not as a warning to leave God's creation or nature alone, but rather as an invitation to think carefully about all the ways in which the use of new technologies could go seriously wrong.

Attitudes Toward Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for Genetic Disorders Among Potential Users in Malaysia.

While pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is available and legal in Malaysia, there is an ongoing controversy debate about its use. There are few studies available on individuals' attitudes toward PGD, particularly among those who have a genetic disease, or whose children have a genetic disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is, in fact, the first study of its kind in Malaysia. We conducted in-depth interviews, using semi-structured questionnaires, with seven selected potential PGD users regarding their knowledge, attitudes and decisions relating to the use PGD. The criteria for selecting potential PGD users were that they or their children had a genetic disease, and they desired to have another child who would be free of genetic disease. All participants had heard of PGD and five of them were considering its use. The participants' attitudes toward PGD were based on several different considerations that were influenced by various factors. These included: the benefit-risk balance of PGD, personal experiences of having a genetic disease, religious beliefs, personal values and cost. The study's findings suggest that the selected Malaysian participants, as potential PGD users, were supportive but cautious regarding the use of PGD for medical purposes, particularly in relation to others whose experiences were similar. More broadly, the paper highlights the link between the participants' personal experiences and their beliefs regarding the appropriateness, for others, of individual decision-making on PGD, which has not been revealed by previous studies.

Defeating the argument from hubris.

Biotechnologies - synthetic biology in particular - are sometimes blamed for playing God or manifesting hubris, that is, for evincing the vicious attitude of transcending the limits of human agency. In trying to create living organisms, we would adopt an attitude that is immoral for human beings. In this article, I want to show that this blame is unwarranted. I distinguish two aspects of the argument, which claims that it is impossible for human beings to create life and immoral to attempt it. I argue that if we adopt a conception of what life consists of in agreement with the scientific world view, there is no place for hubris. Finally, I maintain that even if we accept a non-scientific conception of life (a vitalist or a supernatural one), we are not in a position to formulate the blame against synthetic biologists because what they do cannot contravene this vitalist or supernaturalist view.

Synthetic biology ethics: a deontological assessment.

In this article I discuss the ethics of synthetic biology from a broadly deontological perspective, evaluating its morality in terms of the integrity of nature, the dignity of life and the relationship between God and his creation. Most ethical analyses to date have been largely consequentialist in nature; they reveal a dual use dilemma, showing that synbio has potential for great good and great evil, possibly more so than any step humanity has taken before. A deontological analysis may help to resolve this dilemma, by evaluating whether synbio is right or wrong in itself. I also assess whether deontology alone is a sufficient methodological paradigm for the proper evaluation of synbio ethics.