Are Americans really clueless about synthetic biology and what are the moral implications of this research?

I have read articles about synthetic biology. Particularly concerning nanotechnology that produces a new kind of biological cells that swim to cancer tumors inside our bodies and destroy them. On a positive note, scientists may discover ways to combat deadly diseases.

This is a vastly growing science. Experiments are being conducted in labs world wide. I feel moral and ethical dilemmas will apply if scientists become successful in creating new human life. Will these beings have morals? Will they be able to distinguish right from wrong? On a religious basis, will they have souls?

The scary thing about synthetic biology will be if it becomes a cheap and widely accessible tool to build bio weapons, virulent pathogens and artificial organisms. If this technology gets into the wrong hands, it could pose grave threats to people and the planet. The danger is not just bio-terror, but "bio-error." A deadly plague could be unleashed that could wipe out the entire human race or pollute the earth to the point it would become uninhabitable.

Just swap the first and second words, and drop everything after the 4th.

I'm sorry, what moral implications? They are making designer bugs to do specific tasks. How is this different from making a computer, or making existing bugs do what we want?

There are religious implications - we are now equal to God in that we can create life. OTOH all the creationists will go "See, we told you that life had to have a creator." Meanwhile if God has a problem with it then let him produce a new tablet with:

XI - Thou Shalt Not Splice DNA To Create Lifeforms

on it.

Let me know when they are talking about making artificial life forms that are sentient, then I will work about the moral implications.

Let's worry about the health and safety aspects of keeping the lid on these bugs so they do not mutate or start doing unforeseen bad things.

i think the most important point to make here, re: ethical ramifications, is acknowledgement of the fact that the rich will be able to afford to modify thier children to give them a competitive advantage by being born with certain positive options being hard-wired in to their genetic make up and certain negative options being excluded. we are heading for a completely new aspect to the poor / rich divide and this time far bigger than any that already exist. an irreversible dual human strata is possible here...

THE RICH WON'T JUST THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN THE POOR - IT WILL ACTUALLY BE TRUE.

( until of course the major "bio-error" Fanny points out is a possibility bites them on the a** and an entire generation of modified humans dies )

I think you will die by drowning and then your he!! will be living in a dirty fish tank for eternity. On a brighter note I will be in a glass casket next to you. When I was about 4 I got a bracelet in a plastic case. That was about the same time that Snow White came out. Wasn't she the one that was in a glass casket? OK then I won a goldfish at the carnival and every chance I got I would take the goldfish out and put him in th glass case and admire him. Each time a little longer....until one time when I threw him back...he didn't swim......I've been carrying that guilt around for years....I'm sorry Goldie! See ya in he!!. Buy a potamus (spelling in correct) they clean the tank.

Synthetic biology is a new area of biological research that combines science and engineering in order to design and build ("synthesize") novel biological functions and systems.

In 1974, the Polish geneticist Waclaw Szybalski introduced the term "synthetic biology, writing: Let me now comment on the question "what next". Up to now we are working on the descriptive phase of molecular biology. ... But the real challenge will start when we enter the synthetic biology phase of research in our field. We will then devise new control elements and add these new modules to the existing genomes or build up wholly new genomes. This would be a field with the unlimited expansion potential and hardly any limitations to building "new better control circuits" and ..... finally other "synthetic" organisms, like a "new better mouse". ... I am not concerned that we will run out exciting and novel ideas, ... in the synthetic biology, in general. When in 1978 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Arber, Nathans and Smith for the discovery of restriction enzymes, Waclaw Szybalski wrote in an editorial comment in the journal Gene: The work on restriction nucleases not only permits us easily to construct recombinant DNA molecules and to analyze individual genes, but also has led us into the new era of synthetic biology where not only existing genes are described and analyzed but also new gene arrangements can be constructed and evaluated. Nevertheless, the term was largely unused or abandoned until the early 21st century (e.g., SB1.0, the First International Meeting on Synthetic Biology, was held in 2004).

There are ethical issues that should be discussed!

Creation of new life forms: “Creating life” is the most extreme form of control over other

organisms. The possibility of creating living organisms bestows a new status and responsibility

on scientists and society. Moreover, from a position that argues for an obligation to respect all

living organisms or nature as whole, the creation of new life may be ethically problematic. The

catch phrase: “scientists are playing god”, used in the context of SB and other new

biotechnologies, expresses the uneasiness triggered by the idea of living organisms being

designed and created by human beings.

Blurring of the boundary between living organisms and machines: SB products have

features of living organisms as well as that of machines. This leads to a blurring of the border

between these two categories and may have ethical consequences given that the separation

between living and non-living matter is key to several ethical and philosophical approaches.

Patenting issues: Recent patent application on a modified Mycoplasma bacterium has drawn

protests by NGOs partly because the patent claims rights on basic ideas that have not been

realised yet. This can be considered unethical because such ideas should be, it is argued, freely

accessible (see also the IPR chapter).

SB in human beings: SB may lead to potential applications in human cells and to new

developments for gene therapy in adults as well as to modifications of human embryos. These

techniques could be valuable tools in treatment of diseases but could also be applied to nontherapeutic

purposes such as human enhancement, leading to another set of ethical questions.

The “synbio-divide”: The “digital divide”, “genetic divide” or “nano-divide” describe large

gaps between geographic areas and socio-economic factors regarding to the opportunities to

access the technologies. Analogous to these “divides” is the danger that the unequal chances to

profit from SB might lead to a “synbio-divide”, which raises ethical issues such as justice and

equity in access and power.

I've heard of it, and the question is, will it be used for the good of all, or of just those who can afford it? And when it comes to using it on humans, how much and what???? And once again will it be for just the super rich, or will the benefits be available for all.....

Most Americans only know what their biology teacher taught them about biology from books that were 5-10 years old.

They have no clue at exactly how far science has really come, and scientists prefer it that way. Unfortunately when ever science gets put under the general publics microscope the religious come up with moral quandaries to try and slow progress down.

Its a shame.

American's in general, and as a country, aren't trusting of intelligence.

They don't pay their scientists enough respect, or money.

American people, as individuals, probably would be interested. But as a society they don't want to admit to being that intelligent.