In this post, I am going to introduce and exemplify three main kinds of pitfalls in trial and error learning of synthetic biology.
Around 1860s, the invention of textile machinery and the mechanization of production using water and steam power marked the first technoscientific revolution. Around 1970s, the second technoscientific revolution introduced mass production, telecommunication and transportation with the help of electric power, followed by the third technoscientific revolution, the development of space technology and atomic technology, and the use of electronics and IT to further automate production. And here comes the fourth revolution, in the beginning of the 21st century, a revolution inside the physical world, integrating data analysis, space technology, nano technology, material science, and synthetic biology.
Synthetic Biology, which has emerged over the last decade, aims to engineer cellular regulatory circuits and the genomes of organisms, much like electrical engineers design and fabricate microchips. Just like any other complex new endeavors, few fully understands even the direct and intended consequences of synthetic biology, much less the secondary and unintended consequences. With this said, trial and error learning is a must-covered topic in the research and development of synthetic biology. According to Prof. Edward Woodhouse's thesis ("More Intelligent Trial and Error", The Future of Technological Civilization), there are three main pitfall that people will have to face when proceeding in the face of uncertainty:
"A misguided innovation may produce unbearably costly outcomes before error correction can occur."
Human cloning is an example of misguided innovation. When Dolly the Sheep became the first mammal to have been successfully cloned from an adult cell, the US government explicitly banned any sort of human cloning. This is because the development of biological technology has out-ridden the ideological progress on ethics about lives. The world is not yet ready, at least mentally, for the outcome of human cloning. The concept of human cloning conflicts with the code of bio-medical ethics, with the traditional value and way of living, and with the evolution law of nature.
Biological weapon is another example of misguided innovation. Biological weapon is often described as "the cheap nuclear bomb": according to statistics published by United Nations in 1969, the cost of 50% death of the people in an area of 1 square km by using biological weapon is only 1 dollar. In WWI, Germany's use of biological weapon made over 500 billion people suffer from Viral Influenza, caused over 20 billion deaths. Besides the fact that it is extremely cheap and efficient, the harm it leaves lasts terribly long. The Great Britain tested its newly developed anthrax bacillus bomb at Gruinard Island, and it not until 1990 the Islan was officially out of danger. The anti-human characteristic of biological weapon obviously gone way too far from playing a role in wars.
"Innovative actions may retain too little flexibility, preventing errors from being corrected readily."
Low security level of research contributes to a low flexibility, which makes it hard to make sure the positive outcome of the research. Egypt’s primary public health laboratory in Cairo had been raided during the riots that ultimately toppled the Mubarak regime in early 2011 and that vials of germs had gone missing -- including samples of the H5N1 virus, which might left a fatal impact on the country and its neighbors. The extensive security precautions taken by developed countries, such as those Dutch used to ensure the security of the research of H5N1 and the ones that the Americans had adhered to, were not going to be followed in biology labs in many other countries, mainly because of poverty and social unrest.
Flexibility goes low also when the information and details of research are too accessible. For example, the methods used to create new mammalian forms of H5N1 failed to be published by Science and Nature. The finding was redacted, out of a stated concern on the part of advisory board members that the information constituted a cookbook for terrorists. You can can also consider this issue security, secure the breakthroughs in synthetic biological research from being used deliberately against social welfare. There is also a great number of consumer-friendly synthetic biological products on market, such as 250 dollar for a set of DIY kit to grow your own plant. Such project is not without its detractors and skeptics. Environmental groups are raising concerns about the such project, demanding those companies abandon such project, because it makes synthetic biology too accessible to people without professional skill and awareness of the potential outcome.
"Learning about errors may be very slow."
People need time to accept the brand new values and products brought by the revolutionary synthetic biology, and to come to an agreement on the answers to ethics problems it raised. Laws and regulations need time to catch up with the accelerating development, just like they did some 30 years ago when the introduction of the Internet brought countless security and responsibility problems onto the table. The society needs time to realize all the pros and cons of synthetic biology, to adopt this game-changing technoscientific trend, and to make full use of it in sustainable development.
"Innovative actions may retain too little flexibility, preventing errors from being corrected readily."
Low security level of research contributes to a low flexibility, which makes it hard to make sure the positive outcome of the research. Egypt’s primary public health laboratory in Cairo had been raided during the riots that ultimately toppled the Mubarak regime in early 2011 and that vials of germs had gone missing -- including samples of the H5N1 virus, which might left a fatal impact on the country and its neighbors. The extensive security precautions taken by developed countries, such as those Dutch used to ensure the security of the research of H5N1 and the ones that the Americans had adhered to, were not going to be followed in biology labs in many other countries, mainly because of poverty and social unrest.
Flexibility goes low also when the information and details of research are too accessible. For example, the methods used to create new mammalian forms of H5N1 failed to be published by Science and Nature. The finding was redacted, out of a stated concern on the part of advisory board members that the information constituted a cookbook for terrorists. You can can also consider this issue security, secure the breakthroughs in synthetic biological research from being used deliberately against social welfare. There is also a great number of consumer-friendly synthetic biological products on market, such as 250 dollar for a set of DIY kit to grow your own plant. Such project is not without its detractors and skeptics. Environmental groups are raising concerns about the such project, demanding those companies abandon such project, because it makes synthetic biology too accessible to people without professional skill and awareness of the potential outcome.
"Learning about errors may be very slow."
People need time to accept the brand new values and products brought by the revolutionary synthetic biology, and to come to an agreement on the answers to ethics problems it raised. Laws and regulations need time to catch up with the accelerating development, just like they did some 30 years ago when the introduction of the Internet brought countless security and responsibility problems onto the table. The society needs time to realize all the pros and cons of synthetic biology, to adopt this game-changing technoscientific trend, and to make full use of it in sustainable development.
No comments:
Post a Comment