Comments on: A cautious thumbs up for synthetic biology from the UK public

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:41:10 +0000

Thanks Lesley – both for the clarification on the “living/non-living” question, and the heads-up on the larger study.

By: Lesley Paterson

Lesley Paterson — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:27:09 +0000

I was the commissioner for this study – and was present as an observer for many of the discussions. People did not specifically mention that they perceived man-made life to be non-living – but some of the dialogue participants thought that micro-organisms in general (yeast, for example) were not living. This could be one reason why there was such support for the technology as it was presented (while there was concern raised over re-engineering higher-level organisms). Although more work needs to be done to unpick the underlying reasons for supporting this emerging technology. The study was fairly small in scope – so we did not get the opportunity to explore this theme much further – but it would certainly be fascinating to have more in-depth discussions on how people define what is, and what is not, alive, in their own terms. A much larger study is being planned by the Research Councils – and we hope our study will help to highlight some of the more interesting issues that arose.

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:30:42 +0000

I wonder whether there was some mis-translation or mis-understanding here. In the report, at least one person is quoted as thinking about using yeast in bread-making as suggesting microbes are simply a commodity rather than a life-form (I don’t think I am mis-representing this). I wonder whether this line of reasoning led to the rather unusual classification of artificial/engineered microbes as not living.

Either way, this will be a fascinating one to watch…

By: Tim Jones

Tim Jones — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:46:56 +0000

Lots to go at there, but the business about people not recognising man-made life as life is fascinating. Does it not suggest the sample have misunderstood or stuck their heads in the sand re how life is being defined here (is it being defined by anyone?). Stands for reason people don’t see man playing god here, because they don’t equate what man can do with that they attribute to god. Of course, higher life forms are different – they get that extra kapow! injected, thunderbolt style, from the unknowable at some point.

Point is – what exactly do the UK think they’re giving the ‘thumbs up’ to?