Columns

Should We Halt the Creation of Artificial Life?

Hana Nyhof argues we should; Joelle Nyhof disagrees.

Hana:
In light of the recent announcement that scientists have successfully created synthetic life in the form of a new species of bacteria that operates under the control of a man-made set of genetic instructions, we should pause and question very carefully whether this newly available road is one worth travelling down. What is essentially being played with here are the building blocks of life, something that has always been respected and valued. 
To suddenly take it upon ourselves to 'play God' or, less dramatically, be the ones who engineer and control life, is a big jump in thinking that many people are morally or spiritually unwilling to make. While 'it makes some people grumpy' is not a reason to curb scientific progress these concerns have to be given weight. If the real cost of this new technology is the erosion of core beliefs about the value of life, is the price worth paying for the possibility of future fancy helpful life? 
Moreover, we simply cannot know the practical consequences of what we are doing. Yes, we now know more about the genome than ever before and scientists know what they put into that bacteria, but we thought we knew enough when we cloned ‘Dolly’ the sheep who suffered terribly in life and died young. All the proposed benefits of artificial life are based on a scenario where we are in complete control of the life we create and we simply cannot guarantee this. 
There is also the very real threat of bio-terrorism to consider: forty years ago no one would have conceived of the possibility of nuclear weapons in terrorist hands and as for benefits in fuel, when we already have a abundance of natural resources waiting to be tapped (wind, water, thermal, tidal etc.) is it really wise to continue searching for the one golden fix to enable us to continue consuming? There are real costs involved in the creation of artificial life that need to be weighed before we embark down a road from which we are unlikely to depart.
 
Joelle:
The creation of artificial life is nothing new or scary: it is merely the logical continuation of a process that humans have been undertaking for years. This process began when we first started to selectively breed animals and crops for preferred traits. This has continued through genetic engineering, where we selectively manipulate genes and the expression of characteristics. The artificial life we now have the technology to create is just the next step. 
Instead of taking genes from varying sources (animal and plant) and combining them haphazardly, we are able to synthetically reproduce the building blocks via a computer programme and insert these tailor-made genes into an existing cell structure devoid of DNA. This creates a new organism or bacteria that we can code or programme to do exactly what we want rather than splicing pre-existing genes and hoping the outcome is good. 
This less organic means of creating artificial life has amazing potential in many fields and is no more ‘playing God’ then any of the previous forms of genetic manipulation. Scientists will be able to create self-replicating bacteria which cause no harm to pre-existing eco systems but which could, for example, filter water in places such as Africa. Artificial food sources can be created with higher tolerance to poor conditions, feeding the global population. Medical leaps are also in view as tailor-made substances will help cure illnesses on a cellular level – imagine being able to create an organism that will destroy cancer cells while leaving the rest of the body unharmed.
The threat of ‘bio-terrorism’ is one that already exists and will not be overtly affected by this new technology. The physical and ethical constraints that are already in place for such forms of research will be able to safeguard the technology, and will ensure that it doesn’t stray into dangerous channels. We cannot ignore the great potential for good that this technology provides, and by only considering the few risks or allowing a small group of individuals’ beliefs to become the measuring stick for this new technology, that is just what we would be doing.
 
Debatable is a column written by the Otago University Debating Society. They meet every Tuesday at 7pm in Commerce 2.20.