OPINION: Science cannot operate as a fact-based model and this is what links Synthia, Fruitbatgate and science-based medial stories
EVERY SO often, a scientific development is announced that is claimed by many to change the rules of the game such as the DNA discovery in the 1950s and the cloning of Dolly the sheep in the 1990s.
Now Craig Venter, of the Venter Institute in San Diego, California, announced last Thursday that his team had created a synthetic cell with the media-friendly name Synthia which, according to Venter, means life can now be created straight from a blueprint on computer.
Media networks across the world described this as new territory not just for genetic engineering but for all science. It has, we are told, huge implications; it is profound, almost religious in its importance. Indeed, the Catholic Church has issued a warning about the dangers of synthetic biology, so we know that the classic Venter strategy of creating a stir has worked.
It is also interesting to note, however, that over recent days scientists worldwide, including in Ireland, have downplayed the significance of the results of the Venter team. For many scientists, Venter has not created technically artificial life – the raw materials were already there. The genome of one bacterium, M. mycoides was manufactured, albeit one of the largest genomes created artificially, and inserted into another, M. capricolum.
So should we all calm down now, as these other reputable scientists say, and move along as there is nothing new to see here? It is not that simple.
For one thing, synthetic biology has posed ethical and social questions for some time. While the field has promised important milestones for combating malaria in the developing countries and developing biofuels, there have been several European Commission reports on the issue, one with the simple title, what it means to be human. Beside the bioterrorism fears, or the risk of new unknown organisms self-replicating into the environment, the idea of blurring the boundaries between the animate and the inanimate, between a “real” living organism and an “artificial” one asks profound moral questions.
What if more advanced living organisms were developed from this technology? Would they be afforded the same status as their real counterparts? To go further – what about the development of a functioning brain? Frankenstein inevitably gets invoked. US bioethicist Leon Kass used a phrase that has been adopted since to describe these moral objections – not always religious by the way – to new genetics and genetic engineering: the “yuk factor”.
For many people, there is a spontaneous, not always easily articulated, feeling of revulsion to human clones, animal-human hybrid cells or genetically-engineered humans. The reactions are invariably about “tampering with nature” or “playing God”. As much as “bio-error or bioterror”, this natural yuk factor cannot be ignored.
Once science moves from the lab into society – and as importantly the ideas of science – they become part of society, translated and interpreted in unpredictable ways. The cultural genie is out of the bottle. It is important that scientists, and those within science and innovation, realise how this occurs.
As with the recent so-called Climategate and Fruitbatgate scandals, science appears to be at the core of the story in the creation of Synthia. But the real story, as always, is the implication for human relationships, or just “being human”. In the Fruitbat case, without going into the details of the UCC sexual harassment allegations, it is important to point out that the claim for scientific freedom detached from social mores or practices never stands up. There is a social context to how the science is presented.
This is also the case for climate scientists defending accusations of exaggeration and cover-up apparently to emphasise anthropogenic global warming following the leaked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. The data does not speak for itself alone. Human interpretation and politics is everywhere.
It is difficult for society to forget about the politics of climate-change denialism, as certain climate scientists ask, and focus only on the data coming from the science itself. It is equally the case for synthetic biology.
In each case, it is unreasonable to expect science to carry on regardless. Allowing both types of science, climate science and synthetic biology, progress without accounting for opposing public views presents risks for communicating the science.
The political, ethical and social ramifications of science are what makes it work throughout society, what gives it its value. It is how science gets done. For climate scientists, getting the message wrong means there is a mountain of damage limitation required to try and win back credibility.
Craig Venter has played by the rules of the media game by being provocative and announcing a new scientific paradigm. Climate scientists too have entered media arenas with arguably more profound data for humanity. In each case, the protagonists must defend the science, yes, but also engage with its social implications and with public scepticism.
In the midst of all the current smart economy talk in Ireland, science and maths are seen as important for future generations of students. However, given how prominent the complicated communication of science has been in major global news stories in recent times, it is important that science education explore how ambiguous, uncertain and – well, murky – science is.
It should be more than merely explaining facts. Science must connect to what matters in real life, and we all know how complicated that is.
This is why the phrase “dual purpose” is somewhat meaningless in the case of Synthia the cell. It implies a simple dichotomy – a technology that can be used for good or evil, as if some rogue state or random terrorist out there, not “us”, might be the only cause of harm that could come from synthetic biology.
There may be much harm that we haven’t thought about until someone like Venter makes us stop and think. The real question for society is how any of us can handle the idea that life can be created in the lab.
Dr Pádraig Murphy is research fellow at the School of Communications in Dublin City University.