Blogs

Teme has a friend in the Hastings Center.  I am excited about this project, given its primary focus on encouraging dialogue and repect for for conflicting viewpoints.  Teme provides technologies enabling both proactionary and precautionary undergraduates to advance information science. 
 

When viewing synthetic bioethics from a non-human frame, but instead a global-brain frame, memetic frames, or others, we have great tension as selection seems to take place without much regulation. 
 
I suspect many regulatory systems have evolved in non-human frameworks, but that it is difficult to identify these structures given our generally anthropocentric frame.  If we shed that frame, we may identify many existing structures for regulation in, for instance, memetics, that we can apply more generally to synthetic memetics. 
 

'Concerns about human nature are related across topics,  but that doesn't mean they don't get cashed out in specific ways.  You may find concerns drop out over time.'
 
We must think about the policy implication of what Erik calls 'non-physical' concerns, and work to translate these concerns into workable policy language.  These frameworks should be optional, that we all find ourselves attracted to both proactionary and precautionary perspectives.  People are welcome to contribute to one or the other or  both. 
 

Greg provides a roadmap for the Center's new multi-year project. 
 
It's not seeking to provide answers.  Contributors are bound to provide answers, but the project is not seeking to select answers.  It will seek to organize, but not squelch, a growing community of voices, shaped by scientific leaders in synthetic biology. 
 
The project will produce products like books, essays, presentations in synthetic bioethics and work with journalists. 
 

Conclusion
 
1.We must respect every vision for nature shared by our community on spaceship earth.
2. Both precautionary and proactionary frameworks have value. 
3.Given the consequences of both acting too quickly or not at all, it's important to keep both frameworks in mind. 

The proactionary framework is for actors, not critics.  It emphasizes our role as creators. 
 
The proactionary framework adopts assumptions often seen as "the way it is."  This framework includes ethical obligations, including the obligation to engineer a better future for our world.  While we must be cautious, we cannot be General McClellan's.  We must attack problems like childhood disease. 
 

We must approach synthetic bioethics fom both a proactionary and precautionary perspective.  Both frameworks are valid and equally useful.  As we approach synthetic bioethics, we should adopt both frames. 
 
While some precautionary suggestions, such as "We shouldn't play God" may not carry weight wtihin a policy community, but may nonetheless be valid.  These feelings often exist even in those who are not religious, and underlies a deeper, shared attitude about our relationship with technology. 
 

Looking for common ground between synthetic and natural bioethics.  The definition of synthetic biology: 'The design structure of new biological parts and systems and also the redesign on existing systems.'  One of the goals of synthetic biology is to move from evolutionary models to designed models. 
 

Dave: Should synthetic biological ethics be distinct from bioethics generally?  This event exists to answer the question.   

The Woodrow Wilson Center is hosting an event at 12:30PM EST today on synthetic biology. Event home.