Ethical Frameworks for Deployment of Synthetic Biology in the Indo-Pacific
This work is part of a project under the Australia-India Cyber and Critical Technology Partnership Grant (SLG087) funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and awarded to The Australian National University and Inklude Labs, India. The Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru, is a supporting partner of this project, and the report has been published by the Centre for Global Science and Epistemic Justice at the University of Kent, United Kingdom.
Executive Summary
Synthetic Biology (SynBio) encompasses exciting technologies that can revolutionise our way of living through unlocking new energy sources, developing new materials, transforming healthcare and reconditioning local and global ecosystems. As a rising field that holds the potential of changing the way the world functions, its potential misuse and ethical concerns create a daunting task for its appropriate governance.
At the moment, SynBio ethics are governed by a patchwork of international agreements, laws and regulations that are not completely fit for purpose and in some cases are poorly monitored and enforced. Perspectives from Indo-Pacific countries, which host at least 50% of humanity, are underrepresented in global discussions of SynBio ethics.
Our aim is to initiate the efforts and dialogues that are necessary to fill this gap. Informed by hundreds of discussions with 89 interlocutors from across the region, we devised three frameworks to aid in decision-making and actions.
The frameworks are designed to be concise and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders and practitioners. Each framework has accompanying matrixes, which we hope can mitigate some of the enforcement and capacity issues pertinent to countries across the region.
The first framework proposes an ethical risk matrix for Synbio applications. It suggests that SynBio ethical risk calculation be governed on the basis of the phenotypic divergence of the application from what already exists in nature and on the reproducibility of the application in nature.
The second framework recognises genetic data as a public good, with informed consent and anonymity as the guiding principles for its use. The proposed decision matrix identifies separate governing factors for human and non-human genomic data to promote responsible cross-border sharing of genetic data. The framework further proposes a tiered structure for countries to grant access to identified genetic data.
The third framework focuses on public and stakeholder engagement. It emphasises two principles of trustworthiness in communication and comprehensiveness in assessing views. Public concerns regarding SynBio can be charted on a matrix with two key dimensions: agency and perceived safety. The framework proposes that public engagement on SynBio focus on feature-based concerns of individual SynBio applications rather than overarching concerns about the field of SynBio.
The frameworks are intentionally short, for they are not designed to provide a specific course of action for every possible eventuality but rather serve as a starting point for conceptualising the problem and underlying principles that can be translated into actions by the readers.
Authors
