Research Paper

Reflection/Cover Letter

As I was writing my research paper, I learned a lot about my strengths and weaknesses as a writer. One of the biggest lessons I learned is the importance of time management. I have a difficult time managing my time when it comes to writing projects like this. Usually, when I write, I try to relate it to things I have experienced; however, it is difficult to do that in a research paper. As a result, it took a significantly longer amount of time to write it to the caliber I deem as my best work. Although I struggled greatly with this research paper, I am extremely proud of this paper. Compared to the essays I have written in the past, I was able to get my point across thoroughly and concisely. I like to use a lot of analogies and metaphors when I talk, and I have recently started to do in my writing. My analogy comparing synthetic biology to a knife was extremely fitting. I think it got across exactly how I felt about the ethical issues of synthetic biology. I wanted my audience for this research paper to be anyone who does not know about synthetic biology to learn enough from the paper to formulate an opinion on the subject. To add on, another aspect of writing I improved on in this paper is my vocabulary and sentence structure. I recently watched a presentation on the significance of how a person talks. The way a person conveys an idea can make or break an important conversation. I felt like I could do the same in a research paper, so I tried it. Another outcome this essay has helped me achieve is how I search and analyze credible sources. A big part of this research essay was finding sources, which was also the most time-consuming. While I was researching, I noticed some patterns and shortcuts that I will be using to research future papers. Finally, I tried to work on my sophistication in my writing. When I read research papers written by “professionals” they tend to convey their ideas in a concise but sophisticated way. As I continue to write in the future, I would like to get closer to how a professional writes.

Creating Life, Crafting Ethics: Exploring the Moral Dimensions of Synthetic Biology

Venturing beyond the limits of traditional biology, synthetic biology invites us to explore a realm where biology becomes a programmable, engineering discipline. It stands as a pioneering field that offers remarkable opportunities and raises complex ethical questions. In this essay, I will explore the principles, applications, and ethical considerations of synthetic biology and highlight its potential to revolutionize medicine, and industry while asserting a persuasive argument in favor of the ethical validity of synthetic biology.


Before I elaborate on why it is ethical to implement synthetic biology into our society, what exactly is synthetic biology? While many definitions exist, the best interpretation is by the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC). They defined synthetic biology as a way “to make biology easier to engineer…It can be thought of as a biology-based toolkit that uses abstraction, standardization, and automated construction to change how we build biological systems and expand the range of possible products.” Since the objective of synthetic biology is to tweak organisms, like viruses, bacteria, yeast, plants, or animals, to give them optimized or different characteristics, it is factual to believe that synthetic biology is analogous to changing the code of a computer. Using engineering principles in biology we want to go from reading the genetic code to predicting how living systems will behave. This concept is called the design-build-test-learn (DBTL) cycle. The purpose of synthetic biology is to act as a catalyst for the DBTL cycle.

Science­ has made huge strides through synthe­tic biology. It has completely changed me­dicine, making things once thought impossible, possible. It allows us to create treatme­nts that are specific to each patient. This brings a whole new level to personal health care. It’s about more than just changing genes; it’s eve­n about making cells behave differently. Meaning, that we can aim tre­atments at precise points making the­m incredibly effective­. Diseases that were untreatable before­ can now have successful tre­atments or even be cured.


In the field of synthetic biology, the creation of synthe­tic viruses, also known as Virus-like particles (VLPs), is an important advance­ment. VLPs are small copies of viruse­s, made from proteins that look like re­al viruses, but no viral genetic mate­rial is included (Grgacic & Anderson, 2006). This key quality makes VLPs safe and seen by our immune­ systems, leading to many possible tre­atments.


Virus-like particle­s have a lot to offer in gene­ therapy. They can deliver certain substances like pe­ptides, proteins, and man-made drugs accurate­ly and effectively (Takamura et al., 2004). These abilities can he­lp many health issues. Therape­utic agents can go just where they’re needed. Also, gadolinium-loaded VLPs are great for mole­cular imaging. This gives us a peek into how the body removes viruses (Schwarz & Douglas, 2015). This isn’t just a big step in molecular imaging. It also helps us learn about how diseases move at a molecular level.


While the applications of VLPs in gene therapy and molecular imaging are noteworthy, their most significant and widespread use lies in the realm of vaccines. VLPs can mimic the virus’s outward structure without making people sick. This feature makes them perfect for creating vaccines. Vaccines made from VLPs have shown positive results against many infectious diseases. The flexibility of synthetic biology allows for the rapid design and production of VLP-based vaccines, which can be a strong we­apon against infectious diseases worldwide.


The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial significance of effectively producing vaccines. While a COVID-19 vaccine­ was developed in record time, it is essential to acknowledge the approximately 7 million lives lost, as reported by the World Health Organization as of Novembe­r 8th, 2023. This serves as a critical reminde­r of the urgent need for innovative strategies to improve vaccine manufacturing and distribution. A scientific exploration into the potential of synthetic biology has emerged as a promising avenue in the quest for solutions, specifically in the re­alm of vaccine production.


VLPs are a cost-effective and easily manipulable alternative to real viruses in vaccine production (Takamura et al., 2004). The inherent simplicity and affordability of working with VLPs can significantly reduce production costs, making vaccines more accessible to a larger population. Furthermore, the versatility of synthetic biology allows for the rapid design and engineering of VLPs (DBTL) tailored to specific pathogens, enabling a quicker response to emerging infectious threats. Efficiency in vaccine production is not only crucial for addressing ongoing pandemics but also for establishing a robust and proactive global health infrastructure. Synthetic biology has the potential to prevent the impact of future infectious disease outbreaks like COVID-19 from going to the scale it did.


Many people believe there are ethical concerns about further developments in synthetic biology. One such concern is bioterrorism (Mukunda et al., 2009). The fear that individuals could exploit synthetic biology to create viruses for biowarfare is a valid concern, but a closer examination reveals that the likelihood of such scenarios is considerably low, as argued by Jefferson et al. (2009).


While the notion of bioterrorism through synthetic biology might evoke rational fear, practical considerations suggest that it is not the most optimal or feasible route for terrorists. Jefferson et al. highlight that despite advancements in standardization and mechanization within the field of synthetic biology, engaging in bioterrorism requires a sophisticated set of skills, access to advanced technology, and the establishment of substantial infrastructure. The intricate knowledge and resources needed to manipulate biological systems at this level are a significant barrier. Furthermore, the challenges associated with scaling up production, storing engineered viruses, and efficiently distributing them on a large scale impose logistical hurdles. The sheer complexity of these tasks, in addition, to the time and resources needed makes the bioterrorism route through synthetic biology impractical. The intricate nature of biological systems and the unpredictability associated with manipulating them further add to the impracticality of these concerns.


Additionally, there is already something that exists that has the potential to destroy all of humanity. Nuclear Weapons. If people want to hurt people at a large scale, the use of nuclear weapons offers a more direct and immediate means of causing destruction, making them a more straightforward choice. It is a sad reality we live in. We do not need to look forward to future technology to wipe out humanity, as we already have the technology to do so.


The philosophical exploration of society and the implications of synthetic biology delves into the very essence of human nature, which raises the question of what it truly means to be human. When I compared bio-fabrication to a knife it struck a chord within me—they were both tools with the power to create or destroy, just like the delicate dance of ethics surrounding synthetic biology.


For me, the heart of the matter lies in whether we judge the inherent nature of a tool or focus on the intentions guiding its use. The essence of humanity relies on the multitude of differences that make us who we are. Our unique genetic makeup and diverse life experiences are what give us identity. Otherwise, we would all be copies of each other. It’s this diversity that synthetic biology has the power to influence, which could potentially reshape the very foundations of what we consider quintessentially human.


My stance on synthetic biology aligns with the belief that its morality is not embedded in its capabilities but in how we, as a society, decide to navigate its path. Much like a knife wielded by a skilled chef or a weapon in the wrong hands, synthetic biology’s impact is reflected in the choices we collectively make as a species. If approached with a commitment to ethical standards, it could unlock revolutionary benefits—from curing diseases to enhancing our capabilities.


Yet, the shadow of fear looms large when contemplating the weaponization of bio-fabrication. It forces me to confront the darker elements of human nature, acknowledging the potential for misuse. The analogy to a knife becomes starkly real—a tool that can either help us survive or become a force of harm.


My belief that synthetic biology holds the potential for positive transformation reinforces the urgent need for responsible research, transparent governance, and the establishment of strong ethical frameworks. Our humanity, woven intricately with genetics, experiences, and choices, faces a new dimension. As we navigate this uncharted territory, the responsibility lies with us to preserve the core of our humanity while harnessing the potential for positive change.

References

  1. Science & Tech Spotlight: Synthetic Biology. (n.d.). U.S. GAO. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106648#:~:text=Synthetic%20biology%20is%20a%20multidisciplinary,animals%E2%80%94to%20have%20new%20characteristics.
  2. EBRC | An inclusive community of researchers committed to advancing engineering biology to address national and global needs. (n.d.). https://ebrc.org/
  3. Takamura, S., Niikura, M., Li, T. C., Takeda, N., Kusagawa, S., Takebe, Y., … Yasutomi, Y. (2004). DNA vaccine-encapsulated virus-like particles derived from an orally transmissible virus stimulate mucosal and systemic immune responses by oral administration. Gene Therapy, 11(7), 628–635. https://www.nature.com/articles/3302193
  4. Grgacic, E. V. L., & Anderson, D. A. (2006). Virus-like particles: Passport to immune recognition. Methods, 40(1), 60–65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1046202306001629?pes=vor
  5. Bessa, J., Schmitz, N., Hinton, H. J., Schwarz, K., Jegerlehner, A., & Bachmann, M. F. (2008). Efficient induction of mucosal and systemic immune responses by virus-like particles administered intranasally: Implications for vaccine design. European Journal of Immunology, 38(1), 114–126. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wnan.1336
  6. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. (n.d.). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard With Vaccination Data. https://covid19.who.int/?mapFilter=deaths
  7. Mukunda, G., Oye, K. A., & Mohr, S. C. (2009). What rough beast? Synthetic biology, uncertainty, and the future of biosecurity. Politics and the Life Sciences, 28(2), 2-26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/what-rough-beast-synthetic-biology-uncertainty-and-the-future-of-biosecurity/0BCDDDC3F34BEBCC1A09EC9153EED5A4
  8. Jefferson, C., Lentzos, F., & Marris, C. (2014). Synthetic biology and biosecurity: challenging the “myths”. Frontiers in public health, 2, 115. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00115/full
Skip to toolbar