Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Books Clearly, there have been important advances in the field of restoration in recent decades (e.g., better planting models and technological tools, mainstreaming the field into jobs, legislation, science), but the science and practice of restoration have also encountered a few major stumbling blocks. Divergent trends have developed, underpinned by differing opinions about how ambitious we should be in setting restoration goals within specific landscapes (e.g., to return an ecosystem to some historical state or to restore certain ecosystem functions and services). According to one interviewed practitioner, we have barely begun the task at hand, which makes it too soon to decide how ambitious the restoration projects of the future should be. Woodworth, himself, believes that there is considerable room for consensus between these restoration trends. Our Once and Future Planet is a useful platform for anyone pondering where ecological restoration stands in the future environmental movement—or for anyone intending to shape its future. LUKE P. SHOO Luke P. Shoo ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, in St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu089 THE NATURE OF BEING A MICROBE Synthetic Biology and Morality: Artificial Life and the Bounds of Nature. Gregory E. Kaebnick and Thomas H. Murray, eds. MIT Press, 2013. 214 pp., illus. $21.00 (ISBN 9780262519595 paper). S ynthetic Biology and Morality: Artificial Life and the Bounds of Nature is the outcome of a meeting http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org on the ethics of synthetic biology, held in 2010 at the famous Hastings Center. As most publications issued from the Hastings Center do, this work addresses the depth and breadth of ethical discussions. Two official approaches to the ethical issues that stem from biotechnological innovations are currently the most widely developed: The first addresses issues of bioethics, as raised by Leon Kass, the former director of the President’s Council on Bioethics; the second is focused on ethical, legal, and societal impacts. The former is centered on the integrity of human nature and is therefore not immediately relevant to the discussion of the synthesis of microorganisms. The latter is purposed toward how future applications of synthetic biology will affect humans but does not question the cultural values and meanings attached to the engineering of synthetic organisms. To move beyond the limits of these mainstream approaches was the aim of Paul Rabinow and Gaymon Bennet’s (2012) Designing Human Practice, but in their effort to shape a collaborative ethics program for the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, they did not venture a moral valuation. What is remarkable about this collection of essays, edited by Gregory E. Kaebnick and Thomas H. Murray, is that it breaks free of both mainstream approaches and directly raises the question of whether the design of synthetic organisms is morally good, morally bad, or neither. In keeping with another recent attempt to bring ethics to the laboratory (Van der Burg and Swierstra 2013), this book demonstrates a shift from the assessment of potential practical applications to a discussion of design projects. It is a welcome, robust counterpoint to the current trend of reducing morality to cost–benefit analysis and risk assessment. Working with the assumption that no technology is without value, these essays scrutinize the viewpoints— from both a human and an ecological perspective—that are embedded in the projects of synthesizing organisms. The text never enters the realm of theological debate. Most of the contributors assume secular interpretations of the “playing God” argument based on their conviction that metaphysics underlies each project and influences the designers’ moral valuations. Given the diversity of research agendas that are found under the umbrella of synthetic biology, there are a variety of interpretations regarding the role of nature as it relates to humans. The BioBricks approach, based on a reductionist view of life, seems to reinforce the modernist ideal of mankind in control of nature. The protocell and the minimal cell approaches may be supported by the opposing emergentist view of life, in which increasingly complex patterns arise in an uncontrolled environment. The boundary between what is natural and what is artificial is central to determining the “intrinsic worth” (using Ron Sandel’s terminology) of the objects designed in synthetic biology. Three essays in this volume convincingly argue that this criterion is not really helpful: Because the equation between living and natural no longer holds firm, more subtle distinctions between the teleology inherent in natural and that in synthetic bacteria are needed. Synthetic Biology and Morality eludes any dogmatism by presenting contrasting positions on moral issues. A similar yet more pronounced approach can be found in Kaebnick (2013): Contributor Joachim Boldt argues that synthetic biology is intrinsically August 2014 / Vol. 64 No. 8 • BioScience 745 Books How to Contact AIBS BioScience Advertising, print and online: [email protected] Classified advertising: [email protected] 855-895-5374 Online: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org Permissions: [email protected] Publisher: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 258 Submission inquiries: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 326 Subscriptions: Individual [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 247 AIBS ActionBioscience.org: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 326 Education Office: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 311 Executive Director: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 258 Membership Records: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 247 Community Programs: [email protected] 941-321-1573 morally troubling because of its ambition to create living beings as objects, not subjects, whereas Kaebnick (2013) proposes a more nuanced evaluation based on two criteria: the intent to alter or accommodate nature in the process and the objects of design being microorganisms or more-complex organisms. The latter distinction has often been used to claim that synthetic biology does not raise any moral concern because it deals only with microbes for improving human well-being, but the intrinsic value of microbes may soon cause further debate. The human body comprises more numerous species of commensal bacteria than it does individual cells. As microorganisms associated with human bodies form complex ecosystems, their moral status could be redefined. Finally, the most innovative feature of this volume is the discussion of the links between ethics and public policy from two opposing views. John Mandle, adopting a Rawlsian position, argues that moral disagreements should not affect public reason. Accordingly, political decisions should rely exclusively on shared values, such as environmental concerns, which seem to raise the most serious obstacle to the development of synthetic biology. Using a more Foucauldian argument, Bruce Jennings makes the case for a public policy based on the broad moral and civic narratives tacitly woven in the design of synthetic organisms. For political decisions, it matters whether the organisms are humanmade or the result of evolutionary history, whether synthetic biology encourages or undermines the invention of alternatives breaking with the modernist tradition of appropriating nature. In current practices of design, there is little concern with the actual ontological status of the designed creatures. There is an “ontological indifference” (Peter Galison’s phrase) in synthetic biology—and in the technosciences in general—that may hamper a public dialogue, as well, given the significance placed on ontological categories (e.g., natural versus artificial, living versus nonliving) by spontaneous and divergent public valuation. If we agree that public policy should engage all stakeholders, including researchers, industrial managers, and banks, as well as the public, we must convince synthetic biologists that ontology matters. This book is not only an exciting addition to the literature of bioethics but a great contribution to ethical reflections on technology in general. I hope it will find many readers. References cited Kaebnick GE, ed. 2013. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Bioethical Issues. McGraw Hill. Rabinow P, Bennet G. 2012. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. University of Chicago Press. Van der Burg S, Swierstra T, eds. 2013. Ethics on the Laboratory Floor. Palgrave MacMillan. BERNADETTE BENSAUDE VINCENT Bernadette Bensaude Vincent ([email protected]) is a Professor of philosophy at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu091 Public Policy Office: [email protected] 202-628-1500 x. 250 Scientific Peer-Review Services: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 202 Web/IT Services: [email protected] 703-674-2500 x. 107 746 BioScience • August 2014 / Vol. 64 No. 8 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org