Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

1. First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why.

I have always liked mutated plants with interesting patterns, like variegated monsteras, and wonder if we’ll be able to use synthetic biology to genetically design them to look a specific way. Could we figure out how to mutate a monstera’s genes so its leaves have different colours or shapes?

2. Next, describe one or more governance/policy goals related to ensuring that this application or tool contributes to an “ethical” future, like ensuring non-malfeasance (preventing harm). Break big goals down into two or more specific sub-goals.

It’s difficult to predict what impacts genetically modified plants might have on the ecosystem, however. What if it’s toxic to pollinators or other wildlife? To prevent ecological harm, they should be grown in contained areas and monitored to see how they affect their local environment before they can be sold as houseplants. Researchers should examine whether these genetically modified genes could could spread to other plants via cross breeding, and whether it could reduce the genetic diversity of natural species.

3. Next, describe at least three different potential governance “actions” by considering the four aspects below (Purpose, Design, Assumptions, Risks of Failure & “Success”).

A lot of the responsiblity should fall on the designer of these genetically modified plants.

Option 1 Purpose: If it’s a company, for example, they should help conduct risk assessments and work with ecologists to measure their product’s effects on local insects or crops before they sell their synthetic houseplants to consumers. Design: They should submit data through greenhouse/lab trials—lab that simulate interactions with wildlife in contained areas. Assumptions: These tests are a reliable model of the outside world, and regulators can assess the data independently. Risks of Failure & Success: Failure to predict how cross breeding with other wild plants could create invasive hybrids that harm natural populations. Success could lead to more companies developing these synthetic plants that might not be so careful about its environmental impacts as they compete with each other for profit.

Option 2 Purpose: Maybe the company could introduce safeguards that prevent the genes from their synthetic houseplants from propagating. Design: They could make them sterile so they don’t have seeds. Assumptions: The genetically engineered plants cannot breed with other plants. Risks of Failure & Success: Failure could lead to hobbyists developing their own varieties, or abilities to genetically modify them further without any constraints. If successful, companies may just assume that it’s okay to design any type of plant with whatever characteristic as long as it’s sterile even though it might have other harmful effects other than genetic crossover.

Option 3 Purpose: Regulators should have an ethical framework to guide companies genetically engineering organisms so that synthetic plants are developed responsibly and fairly not just for aesthetic reasons. Design: An ethical review board should invite public comment to consider opinions from different cultures before they write the framework. Assumptions: Diverse public comments are considered and incorporated into a coherent ethical framework that people will follow. Risks of Failure & Success: Failure to include different viewpoints could lead to a framework that seems incomplete or inconsiderate enough that people ignore it. If the framework is too cautious and strict, it could block research or innovation in genetic modifcation of plants.

4. Next, score (from 1-3 with, 1 as the best, or n/a) each of your governance actions against your rubric of policy goals. The following is one framework but feel free to make your own:

5. Last, drawing upon this scoring, describe which governance option, or combination of options, you would prioritize, and why. Outline any trade-offs you considered as well as assumptions and uncertainties. I would prioritise Option 1 and Option 3 because it’s a good mix that would support good governence of the creation of genetically modified plants for all developers, while allowing them to experiment and meaningfully assess their impacts in the real world. It’s a good balance of regulation and development that has safeguards that can be tested without stifling experiments in synthetic biology.