Michael Specter, "A Life of Its Own"

Questions for Making Connections within the Reading:

1. Throughout Specter’s article, the scientists he meets describe synthetic biology using terms borrowed from industry, computer science, and the world of business. Berkeley’s Jay Keasling foresees the day when “biological parts” will be standardized, like tools we can buy off the shelf. Craig Venter looks forward to “booting up” new forms of life by transplanting artificial chromosomes. Freeman Dyson, the distinguished physicist, predicts that the children in primary school will play biotech games that might involve competitions to invent the cutest new species. What are some of the potential consequences of this view of nature? Can you think of other ways to talk about nature—and other ways of ways of interacting with it as well?

2. According to Specter, what are some of the potential dangers of bioengineering? What are some of the ethical and philosophical issues that surround it? How much of his article does he devote to questions of this kind? When Drew Endy describes the construction of new life as “scary as hell,” do you believe that he is genuinely worried? Does he offer a convincing rationale for taking such enormous risks? And where do you think Specter’s loyalties lie? Is he neutral, or would you say that he leans in one direction or the other? Why does he prefer “synthetic biology” to the term “bioengineering”?

3. Can you find “oppositional voices” in Specter’s essay— in other words, the voices of those who are suspicious of genetic technology? What arguments do these voices offer for putting the brakes on its development? One of the technology’s defenders, John Melo, the founder of Amyris, frames the debate using these terms: “Anything so powerful and new is troubling. But I don’t think the answer to the future is to race into the past.” In what ways is synthetic biology an “answer to the future”? In what ways might it create new problems instead? Are its opponents actually arguing for a “race into the past”?

Questions for Writing:  

1. Most of the people that Specter interviews are not only scientists but entrepreneurs with an enormous financial stake in their new enterprises. Given that most businesses put profits first and that the new technologies that have outstripped existing legal constraints should the logic of the marketplace be allowed to replace natural evolution, which has shaped life on earth for billions of years? If the goal of “profit” is a human invention, what goals has natural evolution pursued? How might the logic of natural evolution be more humane in the long run than the logic of the marketplace? Or, might the marketplace be more humane than natural evolution—more responsive to human needs? Do evolutionary principles guide the market itself?

2. Even as he acknowledges the risks of genetic engineering, Specter represents the growth of this new knowledge as virtually unstoppable. In fact, he predicts that by trying to stop it, authorities will only drive it underground, like the thriving illegal industry that produces methamphetamines. Do you find this reasoning persuasive? Could it not be used to justify any activity at all, including slavery and child prostitution, both of which continue even though they are universally condemned? What authority should the citizens of a democracy exercise over technologies that involve large and unpredictable risks? Do these citizens have the right to say “no” to some innovations?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:  

1. In “Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead,” Edward Tenner describes what he calls “revenge effects,” the unintended consequences of technological innovation, no matter how carefully designed. Tenner portrays revenge effects as unavoidable, yet he concludes that “the prognosis” for technology in general is primarily “hopeful.” He believes that these effects can be kept “under control” because “technology too is evolving and responding.” How well does Tenner’s argument apply to bioengineering, and why might this be a different case than the ones he considers? Could the costs of error simply prove too high, or does the new technology give us the tools to correct our mistakes in time?

2. In “Rewilding North America” Carolyn Fraser takes us on a tour of a project markedly different from Specter’s synthetic biology. Rather than redesign nature to make it more amenable to our lives in a consumer society, rewilding sets out to change the human world in a way that will accommodate more of nature as it has existed for many millions of years. Which approach seems more likely to succeed, and why—changing nature, or changing how we live? Genetic technology would seem to hold the promise of more rapid economic growth, but is economic growth the only way to measure our society’s success? How might rewilding offer us a different image of well-being?