Politics Belong in Science
Shortly after Craig Venter announced that his institute had created Synthia, a cell activated by laboratory-synthesized DNA, President Obama asked his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to study the situation. Reflecting on these events, Time’s Nancy Gibbs made an important point: Political engagement with science is necessary and distinct from duplicitous control of science for political ends.
The President’s assignment is in keeping with the pattern set by his predecessors in response to biopolitical developments on their watches. When Dolly the cloned sheep appeared in Scotland, Clinton banned federal funds for human cloning then asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to advise the public. When both houses of Congress asked George W. Bush to review the limits he placed on stem cell research federal funds, he refused to budge and then had his President’s Council on Bioethics prepare a report on the ethical issues. It remains to be seen how the new presidential bioethics commission will conduct its duties, and how its deliberations and reports will be received.
During the regime of George W. Bush, frustrated science-backers mistook the administration’s explicit stance on the moral status of embryos during the stem cell debate as another instance of scientific misrepresentation for political gain. The Bush administration’s embryo-centric restrictions had a stifling impact on stem cell research similar to that which the penumbra of Anti-Science had on the rest of research. Thus, proponents perceived any calls for responsible scientific oversight as misguided and unnecessary.
Last week, Gibbs rightly asserted that synthetic biology is not a field suitable for political abstention. Using the change in stem cell policy as a parallel, she writes:
…[N]either President should be attacked for "interfering with science," as though research — especially publicly funded research — should be immune from regulation…
Without public oversight, we are certain to wake up one day to news of some private breakthrough that rattles our bones: a human-animal hybrid, a cloned child, a fetus grown solely to harvest its parts.
Whether or not one agreed with Bush’s moratorium, it was a socially and ethically charged decision. But because of all the other disengagement from science at the time (suppression and distortion of research on climate change, endangered species, and air pollution), the progressive sentiment understandably culminated in a desire to “free” science from the manacles of politics.
But synthetic biology is not a self-regulating harmless endeavor. The potential benefits are exciting and broad (Gibbs references the oil-eating “bugs” like those patented under Chakrabarty and Venter’s Exxon deal to design bio-fuel-producing Algae), but the potential harms (bioterror/bioerror) are at least equally broad. This balance may shift as we become more fluent in the language of genes, but the concerns will remain.
The scientific capacity to build an organism with an unprecedented genome will likely precede complete comprehension of gene interaction and expression. Should the organism be created anyway? How are organizations like UC Berkeley’s SynBerc compelled to balance social and environmental concerns against the performance expectations accompanying the 500-million dollar check BP wrote to design these radically new critters?
Responsible oversight and governance are needed.
Gibbs’s concerns regarding unbridled science reflect those expressed by CGS’s Marcy Darnovsky in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas about a year ago:
Our job, now that we’re not fighting a rearguard action every day, is to determine the appropriate relationship between science and politics, and between science and state…
While genetic, reproductive, and biomedical technologies hold great potential for scientific advances and medical improvements, they could also lead to developments that would deepen the divide between haves and have-nots and could even corrode our commitments to one another as members of a single human community. Grappling with these issues intelligently requires acknowledging the roles of social values and politics; it also requires assessing how we’ve done so far–and unfortunately, some recent approaches represent impediments to a progressive biopolitics shaped by values of social justice, inclusion, and democratic governance.
Anger against the anti-science Bush era is well founded, but the appropriate response is not handing Biotech the car-keys with a sigh of relief. Practices like synthetic biology require socially negotiated oversight. To this end, a brief moment of appreciation for President Obama’s active interest in the social/ethical implications is warranted...at least until the hearings begin. Just because there was a change in the guard, does not mean we let down our guard.
Even open forums designed to address the social implications of technology can miss the point. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is requesting public input on how the “Golden Triangle” of I.T., Nanotech and Biotech can ensure the greatest economic benefit to society (“create jobs” and “enhance GDP”), but makes no mention of ethical issues. While intending to identify “impediments to commercialization and broad use of these technologies,” this forum requests zero discussion on potential access disparities, communal and individual health implications, or any other social justice concern.
Writing synthetic biology off is a mistake. Writing synthetic biology a blank check is also a mistake. It is time to exit the dichotomy and enter the ethically tempered, politically engaged shades of grey.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: