The Exopolitical Observer

Bioethicists have reacted with caution to the announcement that scientists in the US have created the first synthetic living cell.

Dr Craig Venter's team announced their landmark discovery in Science magazine.

They have succeeded in transplanting synthetic DNA for a bacterium into a host cell.

But what are the ethical implications of their discovery?

GLENN MCGEE, FOUNDER OF AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS AND FRANCIS PROFESSOR IN BIOETHICS

We have now accomplished the last piece on the list that was required to do what ethicists called "playing God". What that literally means is the capacity to be a creator.

There are a number of people who will find that very fact in itself terrifying. Many believe there ought to be certain areas that ought to be left alone. This is one of those areas where you can do things vastly before you consider their implications.


There are obviously very important ethical issues. This work has proceeded without any real regulation at all. The bad guys are out there. Weaponising all sorts of things will be much, much easier.

The science is flying 30,000 feet over the public's understanding of the ethics. Scientists can be their own worst enemy by using words like "clone" or "synthetic life".

This isn't a case of rogue scientists, this is a group that is extremely well known, incredibly well respected.

You are going to have to help scientists with education so this thing doesn't become a national or international threat.

[That is] the way to fend off the Luddites that would say this and any other genetic research is awful - these people will be harder to fend off because more safeguards haven't been made.
---

Entire Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10138831.stm