Abstract
Two fields of reflection on synthetic biology are related to each other: the debate on the understanding of the specific scientific character of synthetic biology on the one hand with reference to the notion of technosciences, and the debate on Responsible Research and Innovation on the other. The target is asking for the consequences and implications of classifying synthetic biology as a technoscience which implies blurring the traditional distinction between basic and applied sciences—for attributing and distributing responsibility. To this end, the EEE model of responsibility will be introduced (empirical, ethical, epistemological). Building on this concept the specific responsibility constellation in the field of synthetic biology will be analysed. Concluding, the necessities of conceptualising ethics as an accompanying reflection on the scientific and technological advances including the consideration of their relationship to the governance of science within the democratic system are taken under consideration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ball, P. (2005). Synthetic biology for nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 16(1), R1–R8. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/16/1/R01.
Banse, G., Grunwald, A., König, W., & Ropohl, G. (2006). Erkennen und Gestalten. Eine Theorie der Technikwissenschaften. Berlin: edition sigma.
Bechmann, G. (1993). Ethische Grenzen der Technik oder technische Grenzen der Ethik? Geschichte und Gegenwart Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Gesellschaftsanalyse und politische Bildung, 12, 213–225.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Boldt, J., & Müller, O. (2008). Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nature Biotechnology, 26(4), 387–389. doi:10.1038/nbt0408-387.
de Vriend, H. (2006). Constructing life: Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut. Working Document 97.
Durbin, P. (1987). Technology and responsibility. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.
Grunwald, A. (1999). Verantwortungsbegriff und Verantwortungsethik. In A. Grunwald (Ed.), Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung (pp. 172–195). Berlin: Springer.
Grunwald, A. (2009). Vision assessment supporting the governance of knowledge–the case of futuristic nanotechnology. In G. Bechmann, V. Gorokhov, & N. Stehr (Eds.), The social integration of science. Institutional and epistemological aspects of the transformation of knowledge in modern society (pp. 147–170). Berlin: Edition sigma.
Grunwald, A. (2011). Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 7, 9–31.
Grunwald, A. (2012a). Responsible nanobiotechnology. Philosophy and ethics. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publ.
Grunwald, A. (2012b). Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung. Plädoyer für eine Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 21(2), 10–15.
Grunwald, A. (2012c). Synthetic biology: moral, epistemic and political dimensions of responsibility. In R. Paslack, J. S. Ach, B. Luettenberg, & K. Weltring (Eds.), Proceed with caution?—Concept and application of the precautionary principle in nanobiotechnology (pp. 243–259). Münster: LIT Verlag.
Grunwald, A., & Hocke-Bergler, P. (2010). The risk debate on nanoparticles: contribution to a normalisation of the science/society relationship? In M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, & C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 157–177). Dordrecht: Springer
Habermas, J. (1968). Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung. In J. R. Habermas (Ed.), Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie (pp. 120–145). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hansson, S. O. (2006). Great uncertainty about small things. In J. Schummer & D. Baird (Eds.), Nanotechnology challenges—implications for philosophy, ethics and society (pp. 315–325). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Ilulissat-Statement. (2008). Synthesizing the future. A vision for the convergence of synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Views that emerged from the Kavli futures symposium. The merging of bio and nano: Towards cyborg cells, Ilulissat, Greenland, 11–15 June 2007.
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). (2009). Risk governance of synthetic biology. Genf.
Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main.
Kollek, R., & Döring, M. (2012). Science- und/oder Technology-Assessment? TA-Implikationen der komplexen Beziehung zwischen Wissenschaft und Technik. Einführung in den Schwerpunkt. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis, 21(2), 4–9.
Latour, B. (1995). Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Versuch einer symmetrischen Anthropologie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Lenk, H. (1992). Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Maurer, S., Lucas, K. & Terrel, S. (2006). From understanding to action: Community based options for improving safety and security in synthetic biology. Berkeley: University of California. Download: http://syntheticbiology.org/SB2Declaration.html
Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2004). Nanoethics: Assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale (pp. 301–310). Amsterdam: Ios Pr.
Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics, 1(1), 31–46.
Paslack, R. (2012). Proceed with caution?—concept and application of the precautionary principle in nanobiotechnology. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Presidential-Commission. (2010). In P. Commission (Ed.), Recommendations on synthetic biology. Washington.
Rescher, N. (1983). Risk. A philosophical introduction to the theory of risk evaluation and management. Lanham: University Press of America.
Roache, R. (2008). Ethics, speculation, and values. Nanoethics, 2(3), 317–327.
Roco, M. C. & Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Integrating from the nanoscale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4. Download: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/nano/2002/00000004/00000004/05099721
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality. Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California.
Siune, K., Markus, E., Calloni, M., Felt, U., Gorski, A., Grunwald, A., et al. (2009). Challenging futures of science in society. Report of the MASIS expert group. Brussels: European Commission.
Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics, 1(1), 3–20.
von Schomberg, R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in the 21st century: The quest for the “right” impacts of science and technology. An outlook towards a framework for responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Opladen: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grunwald, A. (2015). Synthetic Biology as Technoscience and the EEE Concept of Responsibility. In: Giese, B., Pade, C., Wigger, H., von Gleich, A. (eds) Synthetic Biology. Risk Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02783-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02783-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02782-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02783-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)