{"title":"Accept no limits: biocontainment and the construction of a safer space for experimentation in xenobiology as a legacy of Asilomar","authors":"","doi":"10.1057/s41292-023-00322-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Researchers in xenobiology, a subdiscipline of synthetic biology, aim to build a ‘second nature’ with nucleic acid analogues, termed Xeno-nucleic acids (XNA). They promise biosafe technologies, based on the impossibility of transferring genetic material to other organisms and controlling the proliferation of genetically modified microorganisms. Proponents of xenobiology have employed metaphors and narratives that represent the separation of synthetic life from DNA-based, constituting a safer space for the exploration and navigation of virtual biological worlds. Based on interviews with synthetic biologists and participant observation in a synthetic biology laboratory, I argue that the reconfiguration of nature that xenobiologists seek is inspired by the vision of design and governance laid out in the 1975 Asilomar conference, so normative aims of safety are co-produced with visions of unnaturalness. I interrogate the types of limits that xenobiologists aim to cross, to propose that they conceive limits as pushing beyond what is biologically plausible, finding the challenge motivating. I show that the division between the natural and the unnatural is not clearly established as xenobiologists portray. In giving priority to safety as the determinant of the permissibility of new technologies, who gets to define nature and its limits remains restricted to scientists.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00322-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Researchers in xenobiology, a subdiscipline of synthetic biology, aim to build a ‘second nature’ with nucleic acid analogues, termed Xeno-nucleic acids (XNA). They promise biosafe technologies, based on the impossibility of transferring genetic material to other organisms and controlling the proliferation of genetically modified microorganisms. Proponents of xenobiology have employed metaphors and narratives that represent the separation of synthetic life from DNA-based, constituting a safer space for the exploration and navigation of virtual biological worlds. Based on interviews with synthetic biologists and participant observation in a synthetic biology laboratory, I argue that the reconfiguration of nature that xenobiologists seek is inspired by the vision of design and governance laid out in the 1975 Asilomar conference, so normative aims of safety are co-produced with visions of unnaturalness. I interrogate the types of limits that xenobiologists aim to cross, to propose that they conceive limits as pushing beyond what is biologically plausible, finding the challenge motivating. I show that the division between the natural and the unnatural is not clearly established as xenobiologists portray. In giving priority to safety as the determinant of the permissibility of new technologies, who gets to define nature and its limits remains restricted to scientists.
期刊介绍：
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
