Earlier this year I collaborated on a project exploring the potential of DNA mapping and the medical and societal consequences that come with extrapolating this kind of information. We discussed the implications of total genetic visibility, weighing opportunities for organ transplants and fertility problems against the ethical issues surrounding privacy and surveillance.
As an intern I've now been asked to research synthetic biology and gene therapy, which has unearthed a seriously fascinating debate surrounding this technology. From scientists creating pea-sized mini brains for researching treatment for disorders like schizophrenia, to counterfeit clinics offering black market gene therapy for incurable diseases, the future of synthetic biology is bringing to light some very poignant questions about how we will conduct ourselves when "designing life."
Wired compares the synbio industry to the digital industry by explaining that, just in the way that computers and code can be hacked to perform a desired function, biological code can be hacked to do the same. And the speed at which this bio-hacking is progressing is apparently five times that of your regular computer hacking. This opens doors for a range of malicious operations to crop up, including acts of bioterrorism or the manipulation of police investigations by placing cloned DNA as evidence. The most terrifying element of DNA protection is the virtual impossibility of protecting our DNA from the wrong hands, as we leave an inevitable trail of genetic information in every interaction we have with a person, place or thing. The media has already exploded with ethical frenzy over the dark underbelly that is emerging with open source 3D printing. This is exactly the same dark underbelly that lurks in the future as bio-hacking technology becomes more available.
The DNA doesn't even have to be physically present to incite disturbing side effects. With increasing government movements to retain nationwide DNA databases in the cloud, we are fast losing control over who has access to our genetic information and what they can do with it. With the release of the fingerprint scanner on the iPhone 5S, Apple has managed to hypothetically record the fingerprints of an entire population of unsuspecting gadget lovers without even trying. The reality is that one day private companies may very well be able to buy your genetic profile for as little as £1, and consequently start marketing products that are specific to your genetic makeup. This is a whole new level of personalised advertising that categorises you not just by your Google searches but by your medical and genetic history. Insurance companies and employers may be able to discriminate applicants according to their biology. And because these government funded bodies know full well that the majority of the public will not agree to the online retainment of their biological records, the NHS is proposing this movement to take place without informed consent. That's a system that hasn't been in effect since serious ethical boundaries were breached with this type of stuff in Nazi Germany.
Obviously there are lots of benefits that come with this as well. DNA databases have long been crucial to solving serious crimes, and there's lots to be said about the potential for synthetic biology to cure diseases, create sustainable fuels and the like. It's a massive debate, and all of the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the obstructions in the legitimate medical research revolves around ethics, and as biotechnology becomes more familiar, the ethical qualms are sure to erode. The bottom line for that discussion is really whether the trade off is worth it or not. Where exactly we want to draw the line when it comes to compromising our privacy for the sake of medical breakthroughs and catching murderers.
What I find really interesting though, is how biotechnology is changing the way we make things – not just in terms of the materials we use, but on a more intrinsic cultural scope. By manipulating cells, we are designing directly into an organism. We aren't making external components that we affix or place into the context of life, but are actually controlling how life will operate from the inside. Basically any living thing could become a form of technology. We might be growing our furniture in our back yard, or manipulating our genes to look prettier or run faster. Either way, as biologists continue to design life for certain aesthetics and functions, their practice is becoming increasingly creative. What will be the role of artists and designers in such a world? Will scientists become the poets and architects of the future?
The final stage in the overall design process is also bound to change. The traditional linear perspective on design, with a starting idea and an end product, is no longer even remotely relevant. Yes, sustainable thinking tells us to design for systems and contexts that are ever evolving, banishing the idea of "the end product" to a certain degree. But when designing life it's not just contextual evolution we have to account for, but the designed object evolving of its own accord. A manipulated organism placed into the real world will be pressured by surrounding organisms, forcing it adapt by natural selection. It may be created to perform a certain function, and it may perform it perfectly, but as it grows and changes, it may venture in directions we never anticipated. It may even continue to perform its original function, but it will achieve a higher complexity for which more science is needed to analyse. There could be unprecedented side effects for which we have no remedy. We could lose a coherent understanding of our own creations.
It's a lot of food for thought I've been served today, and my brain is tired now. Maybe at some point in the semi-distant future I'll be able to buy some neurologically superior cells that surpass the skills of my boring regular brain cells. Until then though, I think it could be worth exploring these ideas in the context of design for my dissertation, but it might also make me fear for the fate of humanity. It might be a long way off, but the shift into shared ownership and open source culture with arduino is starting to make me wonder whether we will one day see an emergence of stay-at-home mad scientists, tinkering with proteins and mitochondria. Or maybe that's just ridiculous, but despite the potential repercussions of all of this, I'm looking forward to the possibilities.
Further reading:
Synthetic Aesthetics
As an intern I've now been asked to research synthetic biology and gene therapy, which has unearthed a seriously fascinating debate surrounding this technology. From scientists creating pea-sized mini brains for researching treatment for disorders like schizophrenia, to counterfeit clinics offering black market gene therapy for incurable diseases, the future of synthetic biology is bringing to light some very poignant questions about how we will conduct ourselves when "designing life."
Wired compares the synbio industry to the digital industry by explaining that, just in the way that computers and code can be hacked to perform a desired function, biological code can be hacked to do the same. And the speed at which this bio-hacking is progressing is apparently five times that of your regular computer hacking. This opens doors for a range of malicious operations to crop up, including acts of bioterrorism or the manipulation of police investigations by placing cloned DNA as evidence. The most terrifying element of DNA protection is the virtual impossibility of protecting our DNA from the wrong hands, as we leave an inevitable trail of genetic information in every interaction we have with a person, place or thing. The media has already exploded with ethical frenzy over the dark underbelly that is emerging with open source 3D printing. This is exactly the same dark underbelly that lurks in the future as bio-hacking technology becomes more available.
The DNA doesn't even have to be physically present to incite disturbing side effects. With increasing government movements to retain nationwide DNA databases in the cloud, we are fast losing control over who has access to our genetic information and what they can do with it. With the release of the fingerprint scanner on the iPhone 5S, Apple has managed to hypothetically record the fingerprints of an entire population of unsuspecting gadget lovers without even trying. The reality is that one day private companies may very well be able to buy your genetic profile for as little as £1, and consequently start marketing products that are specific to your genetic makeup. This is a whole new level of personalised advertising that categorises you not just by your Google searches but by your medical and genetic history. Insurance companies and employers may be able to discriminate applicants according to their biology. And because these government funded bodies know full well that the majority of the public will not agree to the online retainment of their biological records, the NHS is proposing this movement to take place without informed consent. That's a system that hasn't been in effect since serious ethical boundaries were breached with this type of stuff in Nazi Germany.
Obviously there are lots of benefits that come with this as well. DNA databases have long been crucial to solving serious crimes, and there's lots to be said about the potential for synthetic biology to cure diseases, create sustainable fuels and the like. It's a massive debate, and all of the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the obstructions in the legitimate medical research revolves around ethics, and as biotechnology becomes more familiar, the ethical qualms are sure to erode. The bottom line for that discussion is really whether the trade off is worth it or not. Where exactly we want to draw the line when it comes to compromising our privacy for the sake of medical breakthroughs and catching murderers.
What I find really interesting though, is how biotechnology is changing the way we make things – not just in terms of the materials we use, but on a more intrinsic cultural scope. By manipulating cells, we are designing directly into an organism. We aren't making external components that we affix or place into the context of life, but are actually controlling how life will operate from the inside. Basically any living thing could become a form of technology. We might be growing our furniture in our back yard, or manipulating our genes to look prettier or run faster. Either way, as biologists continue to design life for certain aesthetics and functions, their practice is becoming increasingly creative. What will be the role of artists and designers in such a world? Will scientists become the poets and architects of the future?
The final stage in the overall design process is also bound to change. The traditional linear perspective on design, with a starting idea and an end product, is no longer even remotely relevant. Yes, sustainable thinking tells us to design for systems and contexts that are ever evolving, banishing the idea of "the end product" to a certain degree. But when designing life it's not just contextual evolution we have to account for, but the designed object evolving of its own accord. A manipulated organism placed into the real world will be pressured by surrounding organisms, forcing it adapt by natural selection. It may be created to perform a certain function, and it may perform it perfectly, but as it grows and changes, it may venture in directions we never anticipated. It may even continue to perform its original function, but it will achieve a higher complexity for which more science is needed to analyse. There could be unprecedented side effects for which we have no remedy. We could lose a coherent understanding of our own creations.
It's a lot of food for thought I've been served today, and my brain is tired now. Maybe at some point in the semi-distant future I'll be able to buy some neurologically superior cells that surpass the skills of my boring regular brain cells. Until then though, I think it could be worth exploring these ideas in the context of design for my dissertation, but it might also make me fear for the fate of humanity. It might be a long way off, but the shift into shared ownership and open source culture with arduino is starting to make me wonder whether we will one day see an emergence of stay-at-home mad scientists, tinkering with proteins and mitochondria. Or maybe that's just ridiculous, but despite the potential repercussions of all of this, I'm looking forward to the possibilities.
Further reading:
Synthetic Aesthetics
