Synthetic Life and Silent dilemmas

Synthetic life is something that I as a person heading into research and now currently a student, I am very interested in. In the field of biology there are many controversial aspects to how research is carried out and why. Synthetic life, the minimal genome project is something that I believe is ahead of its time. Synthetic life should not be something we establish before we know the inner workings of our own genomic structure. Let me take a step back here. Aristotle - when deciphering the question of what is living and non-living he stated matter and form . Matter is the structural composition and Form is the "X-Factor". Now, he also touched on the difference between man-made and natural. Natural life had the ability to change as man-made as it is synthesized by man does not. Understandably, this difference in reference to the minimal genome project can be a cause to stand and say that indeed - there is no ability for something created by us to change thus it is "safe" , though - one thing evident to all members of the scientific community and not is the ability for life either that which is man-made or natural, to adapt. Synthetic Life, and its introduction to our biosphere will be the point that we can call the end of time as we know it. Very morbid but realistic in essence. Before any synthetic life is created to assist man in his endeavors, for fuel, food, the changing climates, ensuring survival and more, we must have complete knowledge of our inner workings.

This knowledge though is unattainable, due to ethical conflicts within and outside the scientific community. We are not able to examine embryonic stem cells, we are not able to clone ourselves, we are not able to pretty much do anything experimental with our species as the majority of the earth's population expresses ethical concerns and disapproval to such methods. Though, realistically speaking, how are we to advance without this knowledge? How are we to counter-attack any mishaps with synthetic life? DNA, as we know mutates, what is to say that a mutation even with a life form with minimal genomes will not occur? Will it mutate to something we have not encountered before? Without knowing the workings of our system we are setting ourselves up for extinction. I am against abortion, and the fact that I went back to school so late in life is proof of that, as a freshman, I got pregnant, and did what I know is right. Though, I am pro-embryonic stem cell research, I am pro human cloning to assist this type of research and I am pro decoding our "software". I am pro synthetic life, but not now, it’s time is not now. How are we to enter uncharted waters without ammunition of how to defend ourselves. H1N1 is only one repercussion we see from semi-synthetic life creation, and abuse of technological advancements. How many more will come along and nip us in the rear?

Synthetic life being feasible and a reality is inevitable, as is evolution and time, it is constantly moving forward, and all organisms from unicellular and multi-cellular included. Plants, animals, fungi all living forms of life and non change with time and EVOLVE according to their environmental changes to adapt to these changes. We are already "synthesizing life" that is we are manipulating what we know and have, but creating life from scratch, should not be something we should be DOING , until we know how to fully manipulate ourselves. Synthesizing is defined as combining different things to form something new, which we are doing already we are genetically engineering crops and other things. I always say when asked on my stance of embryonic stem cell research or human cloning I say “ If I have a watch, and I want to replicate it using my own components, I must first know how the original watch works. I must take it apart down to the last nut and bolt.”

The majority of the population that is "hung up" on deemed ethical values in embryonic stem cell research, and cloning should understand, that if this is not something we can do, that is break our components down to the last nut and bolt, and in turn promote synthetic life, to accommodate us, we will be faced with our species extinction, as the evolution of all life is not going to wait until we "find a way around" using embryonic stem cells, life forms around us will evolve with the changing environment and we will be left behind. The worst thing is that people are in denial , of inevitable change. It used to be ethical to kill the thief, now there is reform and killing another person is not only unethical but illegal. When someone had a disease or a mental illness, they were put to death. This was ethical in the past, but as science progressed and cures were capable of being found, ethical values were changed. Our scientific community and advancements have evolved hand in hand with society for the past thousands of years only to come to a stand still in the ERA OF THE GENOME.

Man's scientific advancements were always repercussions of events that threatened his viability, and thus molding morals, that in turn shaped ethical, and in turn shaped society's values incorporating them into law. When we are at war we pull all the stops, and focus on survival. If society's values cannot change due to threat, deeming that H1N1, TB strains unable to be cured, HIV and more so are not enough, then maybe the idea that synthetic life is our only option will trigger the "fight or flight" status of social norm thinking and allow us to advance, by allowing us to arm ourselves with the complete knowledge of our inner workings from start to finish. Synthetic life, an inevitable component to scientific advancement should follow that and not proceed it - as synthetic life, even that of a fuel producing bacteria, may "mutate" as all organisms do at some point, and have our species running against the clock to rectify the situation. Could you imagine, if somewhere down the line, synthetic anti-viruses or fuel generating bacteria mutated and began to kills us off -- would it be far fetched to say that embryos will not be the ones being tested but humans will be plucked from random social classes deemed "expendable" in the name of survival to be examined? Will it be far fetched to say, that those dominant social classes will change their morals and deem their sacrifice necessary? This has happened in the past, and history always repeats itself. Synthetic life, is something that is necessary for our survival in the future but only if we first are able to synthesize ourselves. Sounds, immoral, unethical and monstrous, but would you rather synthesize something you are only able to humbly predict and its interactions with you ? If we are armed with the knowledge of our species' functions, workings and abilities on all levels, and the we are able to predict with better accuracy what our reaction will be to interactions with synthetic life, which evidently should be the next step to catering to man's needs as evolution runs its course of all life and our environment.

At the end of the day, the only thing that makes us, our species "special" and not allowing experimentation to be done on ourselves, but only on other mammals, reptiles, insects and fish is because we are conscious of our thoughts and know we think and feel but denying the facts that other mammals experience the same as we are not fully consciously aware unless we have experienced the organism in question. This is why when we operate on an animal, we give it anesthesia as we know it, though, in the field, this is not considered an option when interaction with the organism was absent prior to the encounter. Denial, is all we experience. We deny that we are nothing more than consciously aware, we deny that human life is as sacred as that of a pupa, we deny the fact that evolution is inevitable and that to fight off evolved diseases and viruses that occurred due to evolution means we must start using embryos to find a cure, we deny the fact that if we do not objectively shift our morals and allow this that the whole worlds evolution will pause for our beliefs. Denial is another way of saying scared as we have come to a point in time that we either accept that we are just the same as bacteria, or other organisms of this earth and just a better competitor at the top of the food chain, or allow our pride as to what makes us human destroy us.

As C.C.Lewis said " A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and of course as long as you're looking down you can't see something that is above you". In this sense, synthetic biology, ahead of its time, is being "promoted" by society and this is due to pride. We are reluctant to accept our humble originations, we are reluctant to make an exception for our beliefs, and yet what we claim to be so sacred in the form of our God, we are attempting to do and recreate life blindly and with no restraint. You don't play God, when you used embryonic cells, you don't play God when you clone, you don't play God when you selectively reproduce- you only play God when you try to create something from scratch like he did. I think society is on the wrong fence, and we cannot play God, if we don't know how the things he has on this earth work yet.

Reconsideration on how we are to find cures to the diseases of today must be addressed especially when alot of money is being put into researching cures on other species and synthesizing life. These are "quick fixes" to defer the realization of our origins. I understand the religious complications to such allowance of experimentation but is could be that indeed we were just spontaneously placed here or maybe we evolved - we don't know it for a fact. The only fact we know is that all organisms on this planet when you break it down came from the same source, the same strain of life and that could be something God created and accepting the fact that we originate from the same "base" of organic compounds with all life forms is NOT demeaning or defacing God's work but accepting how intricate his work is.

Finally we have come to a point of scientific advancement to understand that science and research is not going against God, but bringing us closer to understand how we work, how we thrive and more so research with embryonic stem cells, human cloning and all other "unethical" research approaches are more "ethical" than synthetic life as that is something that is not tinkering with God's work or deciphering it - but actually mimicking it and that is something we supposedly as a society deem wrong and yet we are promoting it and in turn demoting the advancement of science and fundamental survival research which has wrongfully be deemed as "playing God" - it should be seen as "getting to know God". Embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning for infertility issues, creating embryos for stem cell research should be seen as the most ethical approach to science and “getting to know God”. Synthetic life on the other hand is actually “playing God” cause like God, you are creating out of nothing, whereas cloning and genetically altering, or finding ways to extend life, cure diseases or even immortality(very sci-fi but always a notion), are just more advanced abilities we can obtain by researching ourselves, not creating ourselves or anything else for that matter. Religion has always promoted ways of “understanding God” and admiring his work, and promoting our well being, I think that human cloning, embryonic stem cell research actually make us more spiritual, and more full of faith to understand that such complexity is inevitable of something so superior and that without arming ourselves with such knowledge survival of our species will be short lived.

My last thought, if we are unable to learn how we operate from embryonic stem cell research, we will find ways to “copy” what we think is right. A clear example of this is prosthetics. We know that some organisms are able to regrow their tissues and are studying their genetic code. Now we see people with robot arms and legs, when we can take embryonic stem cells and attempt to find sequences matching those of salamanders and see if there is something we can add or “activate” to regrow a limb. In the future would you rather see your grandchildren as androids (synthetic life) or as you are today?

It should be noted that not alot of controversy has been surrounding synthetic biology as now the public is informed, has gotten used to DNA being used through TV series etc. Though, it should be evident that manipulating something we have is not playing God creating something from nothing IS. I am shocked that society has not retaliated with an uproar. Again, this is another prime example for sociologists and psychologists evaluating the impact of mass media. Synthetic biology was introduced to us as something that can provide us fuel and make us independent from oil, cutting down on harmful ecological effects etc. I believe,that if people were informed and made there own person list of what is important - I think cloning human embryos and using them for research to find cures and answers to avoid something called trans-humanism and eating meat from a petri dish -- society would be able to accept that cloning embryos and more so researching our species is not immoral, what is immoral and unethical is refusing to help our species and move forward with creating new synthetic species !