Reply to comment

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. 
 
Yesterday the NIH had a meeting on synthetic biology.  It was poorly attended outside the bureaucratic community.  There recommendation is that synthetic biological products go through the FDA, which is incredibly opaque.  The project presented today is much more transparent, and also encourages dialogue.  Hastings and Teme have similar approaches to how we develop transformative technologies.  Hastings' project's ethic emphasizes open information and conversation on these ethical issues. 
 
We must break down the separate silos separating distinct branches of technoethics.  We can come together to create frameworks for action, even if we aren't necessarily deciding on a particular policy approach to specific or general concerns. 
 
The role of policy may not be to provide any distinct guidelines, but provide infrastructure for individuals to pick the best technologies for them.  Of course, this concern for freedom is paramount, it must necessarily be checked in a limited-resource economy. 
 
For instance, synthetic biology may enable fantastic bioweapons.  How does a national security system prevent the acceleration of 'Moore's Law for Mad Scientists?"  The presenters have not thought deeply about these issues, but claim Erik's framework can incorporate them.  They claim the risk assessment process should be democratized. 
 
At the NIH's meeting, many were concerned that synthetic biology would already be adopted by markets before the regulatory infrastructure is instituted.  That Craig Ventor exists demonstrates the urgent need for dialogue. 
 
Scientists should facilitate education and discussion among even the most obstinate members of our community.  For instance, many people would claim that "we're playing God" by using synthetic biology.  Scientists should sustain dialogue with these people, even as we are forced to adopt policy positions (which may evolve over time).  Proactionary individuals could point, for instance, about other areas in which we are already "playing God." 
 
It seems everybody accepts a frame, views it as correct, and wishes to promulgate it in policy.  We must step back and realize at least marginal validity in viewpoints exclusive to our own.  If we wish to enact our voice, the best way forward is to speak, listen, and learn together.