Artificial life and its consequences
Logika eta Zientziaren Filosofia Saila. Biologiako Filosofia Taldea, IAS Research
EHU
Synthetic biology has two lines of research. One of them, starting from natural living beings, seeks its integral redesign to create totally different beings. The other, based on purely chemical components and systems, aims to develop complex integrated systems, with very basic biological properties (metabolism, reproduction, evolution...). In any case, the real goal of synthetic biology is, in both cases, to create totally new ways of life rather than to transform the organization of natural living beings.
This means that there are many components that must be properly and precisely articulated, but not only that, but this system must be able to maintain even in changing conditions. It means, therefore, not only creating an organized form, but, once invented, that form must be organized, endure and evolve, which are, ultimately, the properties of living matter. In other words, the uniqueness (and paradox) of this artificial creation is that it has its own autonomy: to accept that this invented system is a living system, it has to do things for itself and for itself. The systems to be created will be our work, but at the same time they will create themselves and somehow flee our hands.
Advantages and risks
The advantages of creating living artificial systems can be enormous, especially in the field of health and ecology. If properly designed, these systems could work with precision and functional modification of the basic mechanisms. We could intervene with great local precision and, at the same time, act on a large scale; being able to reproduce them, they can generate large populations in the short term. They can also have a wide field of application and a high economic impact in the field of technologies that exploit redesigned biological mechanisms. For example, to create new forms of computing.
Finally, we must not forget the theoretical interest that new forms of biological organization can have, which have never been generated by evolution on our planet: the greatest revolution in biology since Darwin would certainly be its discovery and understanding.
However, these hopeful options are one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the high risk of such a profound intervention in the natural organization of life. Today we know how closely connected there is between all living beings and how complex their relationships are. It is true that when we analyze in detail, living systems adopt the form of complicated mechanisms in which each party performs a well limited function, so they could act specifically and locally. But when we change perspective and look more globally at the organism, all these parts appear integrated, form a single organic unit, and it is impossible to locate changes in it. And although we managed to control how processes are articulated at the level of the organism, we would not understand the organisms as a whole until they realized the complex dynamics of the gigantic ecological networks that form the organisms. We are working with very complex systems, and that is the risk, because we do not know well the indirect effects of our actions.
All this should encourage us to reflect carefully on artificially produced changes in living beings. In fact, the greater the capacity for action, the deeper, more durable and complex, and therefore more difficult to foresee, will be the effects of our action. In addition, reflection is not only an analysis of conclusions, but also how to organize one's own reflection: who should participate in reflection? Who should make decisions? Experts, representatives of society, biotechnology companies, NGOs, bioethics committees...? And what is the role of each of them?
Such complex issues will hardly have an easy solution. However, at bottom, the problem is not new. The root of the problem is as old as human civilization. In short, the manipulation of the genetic evolution of many animals and plants has been one of the elements that we have used to build our civilization, since livestock and agriculture have created them artificially. Since time immemorial we have transformed natural systems, squeezing forests, destroying thousands of species and, in essence, adapting the environment to our preferences. The novelty is the intensity of the intervention; we have so altered the dynamics of our biological environment that the unexpected consequences, so disproportionate and uncontrollable, that threaten the civilization itself causing the alteration are becoming visible.
Like Prometheus, condemned for stealing fire, the unlimited development of civilization and technology is causing terrible consequences. But since we don't want to go back to the semi-wild past, and we probably can't, the only solution is to rethink scientific research and not give up on it. In what sense? Deepening the understanding of biological organization and becoming aware of the long-term consequences – both in space and time – of its influence in some parts of the biosphere. A global interdisciplinary vision that affects many basic aspects of human life is essential for this.
I believe that from this point of view artificial life would not only look like a possible risk, but as a basic tool for planning a better future.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
