Survey on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) for Synthetic Biology

[todd]

The following list of ELSI priorities builds on a workshop held on
November 8-9, 2010, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars in Washington, DC. The workshop culminated in a July 2011
report, Issues Arising from Synthetic Biology: What Lies Ahead?, which
identified potential challenges and pressing research needs.

Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted to gather
further input about which ELSI issues should be considered in the
context of synthetic biology. The list of priorities integrates the
workshop-generated ideas with the online input.

The results of this anonymous survey will be analyzed and compiled
into a report, which will be released in mid- to late-May 2012.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dERxQ1F5b1RKX3hDTC0xVnRRaWk3Q2c6MA

[Cory Geesaman]

Aside from the fact the thing reads like it's straight out of a socialist newsletter, figured I would state a couple of my responses (primely to identify this is something worth the time to fill out):

(1-5 with 1 as the least important)

Regulate the Do-It-Yourself biology community *

1

Make sure the concept of risk (in addition to benefits) is properly communicated by scientists and policymakers to the public, particularly members of the public with low scientific literacy *

1 - I don't like the implications of "properly" when relating to the conveyance of risk by the government.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Cory Geesaman <co...@geesaman.com> wrote:

Aside from the fact the thing reads like it's straight out of a socialist newsletter, figured I would state a couple of my responses (primely to identify this is something worth the time to fill out):

I think the simplest way to put it, Cory, is that the survey is wrong.

The questions are all framed and posited in a really terrible, self-fulfilling way.. "Do you want good things? YES" "Do you want bad things? NO". I predict that whoever wrote the survey, will get the answers that they wanted. It reads like a choice sheet: "please specify which way you would prefer as the first way to get screwed over by us, followed by your second preference".

Gee, thanks. This is not helping us.

"Ensure that the negative consequences of synthetic biology applications with long-term effects, such as changing the human microbiome or the production of synbio-based fuel, are benign (or limited)"

False question, because you can't regulate whether or not I consider "changing the human microbiome" to be a "negative consequence". And, I don't..

"Determine whether future oversight in the United States should be based on synthetic biology products, or on the processes used to create them"

False question, because you're assuming inevitable oversight. (Although, commercial advertising oversight/regulation sounds important to me, no "this will cure everything ever" claims. These are regulated-entities (companies) operating under law, so they should be subject to these laws, etc.)

"Ensure that ethical, legal, and social concerns are addressed in a legitimate manner, and identify and include groups that should be represented in this broader discussion"

False question, because it's not your/their business what I do with my body, my biology, etc. If they want me to stop running PCR reactions, I don't think I'll listen to various NPO's "ethical, legal and social concerns", for example.

"Decide which social, ethical and religious issues will be incorporated into the governance and regulatory structures, who will make these decisions, and how the issues will be incorporated"

False question, because you can't regulate/choose our ethics for us. The question also assumes that these "social ethical religious regulatory issues and decisions" (SERRIDs) are something that would produce results that we want.. which is not true at all.. we want biohacking, not evangelical regulatory theory 101.

"Ban certain applications that pose a significant threat (deadly viruses, re-engineered human stem cells)"

False question, those bans don't solve any problems. Also, what's wrong with re-engineered human cells? Wow. Just, wow.

"Regulate the Do-It-Yourself biology community" 

Ha! Very funny. Todd, we've been telling you forever that this is not something that's able to be regulated. And even if you think you've regulated it, you haven't.

"Identify intellectual property-related (IP) issues specific to synthetic biology and consider changes to the current patent and copyright systems"
False question: assumes Intellectual Property makes sense or that, even if it doesn't make sense, that it is worth deliberating. There's been tremendous discussion everywhere on the net about the realities of "Intellectual Property"..

"Make sure the concept of risk (in addition to benefits) is properly communicated by scientists and policymakers to the public, particularly members of the public with low scientific literacy"

False question: it assumes that the "concept of risk" is useful; I think we have a better chance with programs that just assume that infection will happen, and work backwards from there (immune systems, filters, air gaps, etc). Starting with the assumption of risk is just all sorts of wrong..
"Educate journalists to promote clear and unexaggerated reporting on achievements in synthetic biology"

Well. Good luck with that one.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Cory Geesaman]

There was one really good question that didn't appear like it could be construed in a twisted fashion, even by a politician:

Ensure synthetic biology is properly addressed in the science curriculum, perhaps as early as high school *

I also wrote in at the bottom that there should be community labs funded like local libraries to assist in producing more science and engineering related individuals.  I tried pitching a Maine DIYbio lab to the Portland library, they said they had been approached with the concept of Maker/Fab labs before before and like it, but can't take on the liability involved.  One area policy makers could actually help would be to allow for limited liability in such places (perhaps some extension of any funding for lab equipment) and additional funding to justify the creation of community labs.  It seems colleges in the area are willing to work with small businesses and individuals pursuing a specific product they can retain some IP to, but aren't interested in generic research topics without immediately apparent business potential unless you are a student or faculty member.

[Cathal Garvey]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/111-organizations-call-for-synth.html?ref=em

Disappointing topical silliness: Friends of the Earth et al are calling for a moratorium or some probably extreme legislation. Quotes given by people close to the diybio and biotech community.

Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "DIYbio" group.
>To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

--
Sent from K-9 Mail on Android

[Cathal Garvey]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/111-organizations-call-for-synth.html?ref=em

Disappointing topical silliness: Friends of the Earth et al are calling for a moratorium or some probably extreme legislation. Quotes given by people close to the diybio and biotech community.

Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Cory Geesaman]

I wonder how many of the 111 organizations are affiliated with healthcare in a manner that would benefit from this (large enough that the regulation is just a barrier to entry).

>diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[Cory Geesaman]

lol, I couldn't find recommendation 15 anywhere on:

http://www.synbioproject.org/scorecard/recommendations/

but looking on Google:

http://www.bioethics.gov/documents/synthetic-biology/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf

Recommendation 15: Information Accuracy

When discussing synthetic biology, individuals and deliberative forums 

should strive to employ clear and accurate language. The use of sensationalist buzzwords and phrases such as “creating life” or “playing God” may 

initially increase attention to the underlying science and its implications for 

society, but ultimately such words impede ongoing understanding of both 

the scientific and ethical issues at the core of public debates on these topics. 

To further promote public education and discourse, a mechanism should be 

created, ideally overseen by a private organization, to fact-check the variety of 

claims relevant to advances in synthetic biology

I guess even the politicians won't protect us from internet trolls.  Though considering "creating life" and "playing God" are both highly subjective it seems the initial intent was against free speech through a privately-based filter.

On Monday, March 19, 2012 4:07:40 PM UTC-4, Cathal wrote:

>diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.

[Tom Randall]

Just fill it out and select 1 for most things.

In the box titled "What else have we missed?"

Ensure that NGOs and environmental organizations with low scientific literacy and/or any long standing anti-scientific agendas (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, et al) are kept out of any regulatory process involved in addressing Synthetic Biology or any other type of public or private research involving modern genetic technologies of any kind.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dERxQ1F5b1RKX3hDTC0xVnRRaWk3Q2c6MA