How molecular techniques are developed from natural systems

A striking characteristic of the molecular techniques of genetics is that they are derived from natural occurring systems. RNA interference, for example, utilizes a mechanism that evolved in eukaryotes to destroy foreign nucleic acid. Other case studies I highlight are restriction enzymes, DNA sequencing, polymerase chain reaction, gene targeting, fluorescent proteins (such as, green fluorescent protein), induced pluripotent stem cells, and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-CRISPR associated 9. The natural systems' strategy for technique development means that biologists utilize the activity of a mechanism's effector (protein or RNA) and exploit biological specificity (protein or nucleic acid can cause precise reactions). I also argue that the developmental trajectory of novel molecular techniques, such as RNA interference, has 4 characteristic phases. The first phase is discovery of a biological phenomenon. The second phase is identification of the biological mechanism's trigger(s): the effector and biological specificity. The third phase is the application of the trigger(s) as a technique. The final phase is the maturation and refinement of the technique. Developing new molecular techniques from nature is crucial for future genetic research.

Interactive Models in Synthetic Biology: Exploring Biological and Cognitive Inter-Identities

The aim of this article is to investigate the relevance and implications of synthetic models for the study of the interactive dimension of minimal life and cognition, by taking into consideration how the use of artificial systems may contribute to an understanding of the way in which interactions may affect or even contribute to shape biological identities. To do so, this article analyzes experimental work in synthetic biology on different types of interactions between artificial and natural systems, more specifically: between protocells and between biological living cells and protocells. It discusses how concepts such as control, cognition, communication can be used to characterize these interactions from a theoretical point of view, which criteria of relevance and evaluation of synthetic models can be applied to these cases, and what are their limits.

DIY-Bio - economic, epistemological and ethical implications and ambivalences

Since 2008, we witness the emergence of the Do-It-Yourself Biology movement, a global movement spreading the use of biotechnology beyond traditional academic and industrial institutions and into the lay public. Practitioners include a broad mix of amateurs, enthusiasts, students, and trained scientists. At this moment, the movement counts nearly 50 local groups, mostly in America and Europe, but also increasingly in Asia. Do-It-Yourself Bio represents a direct translation of hacking culture and practicesfrom the realm of computers and software into the realm of genes and cells. Although the movement is still in its infancy, and it is even unclear whether it will ever reach maturity, the contours of a new paradigm of knowledge production are already becoming visible. We will subsequently sketch the economic, the epistemological and the ethical profile of Do-It-Yourself Bio, and discuss its implications and also its ambivalences.

From self-organization to self-assembly: a new materialism?

While self-organization has been an integral part of academic discussions about the distinctive features of living organisms, at least since Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgement, the term 'self-assembly' has only been used for a few decades as it became a hot research topic with the emergence of nanotechnology. Could it be considered as an attempt at reducing vital organization to a sort of assembly line of molecules? Considering the context of research on self-assembly I argue that the shift of attention from self-organization to self-assembly does not really challenge the boundary between chemistry and biology. Self-assembly was first and foremost investigated in an engineering context as a strategy for manufacturing without human intervention and did not raise new perspectives on the emergence of vital organization itself. However self-assembly implies metaphysical assumptions that this paper tries to disentangle. It first describes the emergence of self-assembly as a research field in the context of materials science and nanotechnology. The second section outlines the metaphysical implications and will emphasize a sharp contrast between the ontology underlying two practices of self-assembly developed under the umbrella of synthetic biology. And unexpectedly, we shall see that chemists are less on the reductionist side than most synthetic biologists. Finally, the third section ventures some reflections on the kind of design involved in self-assembly practices.

What is Proof of Concept Research and how does it Generate Epistemic and Ethical Categories for Future Scientific Practice?

"Proof of concept" is a phrase frequently used in descriptions of research sought in program announcements, in experimental studies, and in the marketing of new technologies. It is often coupled with either a short definition or none at all, its meaning assumed to be fully understood. This is problematic. As a phrase with potential implications for research and technology, its assumed meaning requires some analysis to avoid it becoming a descriptive category that refers to all things scientifically exciting. I provide a short analysis of proof of concept research and offer an example of it within synthetic biology. I suggest that not only are there activities that circumscribe new epistemological categories but there are also associated normative ethical categories or principles linked to the research. I examine these and provide an outline for an alternative ethical account to describe these activities that I refer to as "extended agency ethics". This view is used to explain how the type of research described as proof of concept also provides an attendant proof of principle that is the result of decision-making that extends across practitioners, their tools, techniques, and the problem solving activities of other research groups.

Designing synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is frequently defined as the application of engineering design principles to biology. Such principles are intended to streamline the practice of biological engineering, to shorten the time required to design, build, and test synthetic gene networks. This streamlining of iterative design cycles can facilitate the future construction of biological systems for a range of applications in the production of fuels, foods, materials, and medicines. The promise of these potential applications as well as the emphasis on design has prompted critical reflection on synthetic biology from design theorists and practicing designers from many fields, who can bring valuable perspectives to the discipline. While interdisciplinary connections between biologists and engineers have built synthetic biology via the science and the technology of biology, interdisciplinary collaboration with artists, designers, and social theorists can provide insight on the connections between technology and society. Such collaborations can open up new avenues and new principles for research and design, as well as shed new light on the challenging context-dependence-both biological and social-that face living technologies at many scales. This review is inspired by the session titled "Design and Synthetic Biology: Connecting People and Technology" at Synthetic Biology 6.0 and covers a range of literature on design practice in synthetic biology and beyond. Critical engagement with how design is used to shape the discipline opens up new possibilities for how we might design the future of synthetic biology.

How a 'drive to make' shapes synthetic biology

A commitment to 'making'--creating or producing things--can shape scientific and technological fields in important ways. This article demonstrates this by exploring synthetic biology, a field committed to making use of advanced techniques from molecular biology in order to make with living matter (and for some, to engineer living matter). I describe and analyse how this field's 'drive to make' shapes its organisational, methodological, epistemological, and ontological character. Synthetic biologists' ambition to make helps determine how their field demarcates itself, sets appropriate methods and practices, construes the purpose and character of knowledge, and views the things of the living world. Using empirical data from extensive ethnographic and interview-based research, I discuss the importance of seemingly simple and unimportant commitments-in this case, a focus on the making of things rather than the production of knowledge claims. I conclude by examining the ramifications of this line of research for studies of science and technology.

Organism, machine, artifact: The conceptual and normative challenges of synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that aims to apply rational engineering principles in the design and creation of organisms that are exquisitely tailored to human ends. The creation of artificial life raises conceptual, methodological and normative challenges that are ripe for philosophical investigation. This special issue examines the defining concepts and methods of synthetic biology, details the contours of the organism-artifact distinction, situates the products of synthetic biology vis-à-vis this conceptual typology and against historical human manipulation of the living world, and explores the normative implications of these conclusions. In addressing the challenges posed by emerging biotechnologies, new light can be thrown on old problems in the philosophy of biology, such as the nature of the organism, the structure of biological teleology, the utility of engineering metaphors and methods in biological science, and humankind's relationship to nature.

Engineering Biology and Society: Reflections on Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology, according to some definitions, is the attempt to make biology into an engineering discipline. I ask what is meant by this objective, which seems to have excited and energised many people and encouraged them to start working in the field. I show how synthetic biologists make a point of distinguishing their work from previous genetic ‘engineering’, which is described as bespoke and artisan. I examine synthetic biologists’ accounts of the differences between biology and engineering, which often oppose comprehension to construction. I argue that synthetic biology, like other branches of engineering, aims to meet recognised needs, and to make the world more manipulable and controllable. But there are tensions within the field—some synthetic biologists have reservations about the extent to which biology can be engineered, and ask whether it is necessary to develop a new type of engineering when working with living systems. After exploring these debates, I turn to some of the broader consequences of making biology easier to engineer, particularly the deskilling and democratisation of the technology. I end by arguing that because synthetic biologists are skilled at bringing together both technical and social forces, they are appropriately described as ‘heterogeneous engineers’.

Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition

In this article, we evaluate a novel method for post-ELSI (ethical, legal and social implications) collaboration, drawing on 'human practices' (HP) to develop a form of reflexive ethical equipment that we termed 'sociotechnical circuits'. We draw on a case study of working collaboratively in the International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition (iGEM) and relate this to the parts-based agenda of synthetic biology. We use qualitative methods to explore the experience of undergraduate students in the Competition, focussing on the 2010 University of Sheffield team. We examine how teams work collaboratively across disciplines to produce novel microorganisms. The Competition involves a HP component and we examine the way in which this has been narrowly defined within the ELSI framework. We argue that this is a much impoverished style of HP when compared with its original articulation as the development of 'ethical equipment'. Inspired by this more theoretically rich HP framework, we explore the relations established between team members and how these were shaped by the norms, materials and practices of the Competition. We highlight the importance of care in the context of post-ELSI collaborations and report on the implications of our case study for such efforts and for the relation of the social sciences to the life sciences more generally.

Synthetic biology and the technicity of biofuels

The principal existing real-world application of synthetic biology is biofuels. Several 'next generation biofuel' companies-Synthetic Genomics, Amyris and Joule Unlimited Technologies-claim to be using synthetic biology to make biofuels. The irony of this is that highly advanced science and engineering serves the very mundane and familiar realm of transport. Despite their rather prosaic nature, biofuels could offer an interesting way to highlight the novelty of synthetic biology from several angles at once. Drawing on the French philosopher of technology and biology Gilbert Simondon, we can understand biofuels as technical objects whose genesis involves processes of concretisation that negotiate between heterogeneous geographical, biological, technical, scientific and commercial realities. Simondon's notion of technicity, the degree of concretisation of a technical object, usefully conceptualises this relationality. Viewed in terms of technicity, we might understand better how technical entities, elements, and ensembles are coming into being in the name of synthetic biology. The broader argument here is that when we seek to identify the newness of disciplines, their newness might be less epistemic and more logistic.

Discipline-building in synthetic biology

Despite the multidisciplinary dimension of the kinds of research conducted under the umbrella of synthetic biology, the US-based founders of this new research area adopted a disciplinary profile to shape its institutional identity. In so doing they took inspiration from two already established fields with very different disciplinary patterns. The analogy with synthetic chemistry suggested by the term 'synthetic biology' is not the only model. Information technology is clearly another source of inspiration. The purpose of the paper, with its focus on the US context, is to emphasize the diversity of views and agendas coexisting under the disciplinary label synthetic biology, as the two models analysed are only presented as two extreme postures in the community. The paper discusses the question: in which directions the two models shape this emerging field? Do they chart two divergent futures for synthetic biology?

Two sides of the same coin? The (techno)epistemic cultures of systems and synthetic biology

Systems and synthetic biology both emerged around the turn of this century as labels for new research approaches. Although their disciplinary status as well as their relation to each other is rarely discussed in depth, now and again the idea is invoked that both approaches represent 'two sides of the same coin'. The following paper focuses on this general notion and compares it with empirical findings concerning the epistemic cultures prevalent in the two contexts. Drawing on interviews with researchers from both fields, on participatory observation in conferences and courses and on documentary analysis, this paper delineates differences and similarities, incompatibilities and blurred boundaries. By reconstructing systems and synthetic biology's epistemic cultures, this paper argues that they represent two 'communities of vision', encompassing heterogeneous practices. Understanding the relation of the respective visions of understanding nature and engineering life is seen as indispensible for the characterisation of (techno)science in more general terms. Depending on the conceptualisation of understanding and construction (or: science and engineering), related practices such as in silico modelling for enhancing understanding or enabling engineering can either be seen as incommensurable or 'two sides of one coin'.

Synthetic biology between technoscience and thing knowledge

Synthetic biology presents a challenge to traditional accounts of biology: Whereas traditional biology emphasizes the evolvability, variability, and heterogeneity of living organisms, synthetic biology envisions a future of homogeneous, humanly engineered biological systems that may be combined in modular fashion. The present paper approaches this challenge from the perspective of the epistemology of technoscience. In particular, it is argued that synthetic-biological artifacts lend themselves to an analysis in terms of what has been called 'thing knowledge'. As such, they should neither be regarded as the simple outcome of applying theoretical knowledge and engineering principles to specific technological problems, nor should they be treated as mere sources of new evidence in the general pursuit of scientific understanding. Instead, synthetic-biological artifacts should be viewed as partly autonomous research objects which, qua their material-biological constitution, embody knowledge about the natural world-knowledge that, in turn, can be accessed via continuous experimental interrogation.

Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science's response to the challenge of big data biology

Big data biology-bioinformatics, computational biology, systems biology (including 'omics'), and synthetic biology-raises a number of issues for the philosophy of science. This article deals with several such: Is data-intensive biology a new kind of science, presumably post-reductionistic? To what extent is big data biology data-driven? Can data 'speak for themselves?' I discuss these issues by way of a reflection on Carl Woese's worry that "a society that permits biology to become an engineering discipline, that allows that science to slip into the role of changing the living world without trying to understand it, is a danger to itself." And I argue that scientific perspectivism, a philosophical stance represented prominently by Giere, Van Fraassen, and Wimsatt, according to which science cannot as a matter of principle transcend our human perspective, provides the best resources currently at our disposal to tackle many of the philosophical issues implied in the modeling of complex, multilevel/multiscale phenomena.