Pros And Cons Of Synthetic Biology

The concept of life from the way one can see it is most similar to the way Ferris Jabr thinks about it. In Ferris Jabr’s Why Nothing is Truly Alive (2014) he talks about how nothing is actually alive and all of it is a concept. This is the way one can perceive how life is because perception is relative depending what has been taught. In reality nothing is alive because there is no one concrete definition of what life means. In the article “Why Nothing Is Truly Alive” Jabr is arguing that the creation of the Strandbeest by Dutch artist Theo Jansen is the same, in the sense of being alive, to an animal or plant. Also he is saying that nothing is actually alive too. Now the Standbeest is an animal made up of plastic tubes, wood, and sails. They move from wind hitting the sails and that moves the machine. Life does not actually have to be alive it can be things that one may want life to be.

Synthetic life as a whole is solely based on engineering something within the biological field to produce a new living cell or enzyme. This is an attempt by many scientists to enhance the biology field, and make more living things for purposeful uses. However, with creating this new form of life, much speculation arises. Ethical issues come about from this engineering and many people do not agree with what scientists are doing.

The concept of synthetic life is to create a new type of living cell out of synthetic DNA. Craig Venter and other scientists wanted to find a way to understand how life form on Earth. They were answering the question; can mankind create lifeforms? Craig Venter did answer this question by eventually using yeast to perform a transplant to make a new type of cell. In my opinion, Craig Venter should not attempt to create synthetic life because I think it is playing God and ultimately messing with the balance of nature. Abiotic synthesis proves that life was made out of inorganic precursors like energy from lighting or UV radiation. I am such a strong believer in letting mother nature take care of itself and because of that I would not trust the creation of synthetic life. I also think messing with synthetic life would make more problems for

Truth be told, though everybody thinks they know it when they see it, there's no widely agreed upon definition of life. In fact fire is sometimes used as an example of something that obviously isn't alive but nonetheless exhibits many functional characteristics of living things, e.g., metabolism, growth, reproduction, and so on.

minimal drift and wash off by rain. By the use of the Bt gene there

A broad definition of synthetic biology is “the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems, and the re-design of existing natural biological systems for useful purposes” (Heavey. 2013) Synthetic biologists main goal is to engineer naturally occurring biological systems, by re-building them from the ground up, removing some of their complex nature and reducing their unpredictability, to produce controlled, autonomous systems readily available for advantageous use by humans. Examples of which include but are not limited to: New medical technologies, food production and fuel development. (Kaebnick et al. 2014, Heavey 2013) Synthetic biology offers the prospect of significant benefits to humanity. However, it also raises some important ethical concerns. The four main concerns that have gathered utmost attention from bioethicists are: (1) concerns that the act of altering naturally occurring systems is ‘playing god’, (2) that producing systems that will function like computers is undermining the distinction between living organisms and computers, (3) concerns about the deliberate misuse of knowledge from synthetic biology to create powerful weapon systems, and (4) That synthetic biology is putting a patency on naturally occurring biological systems, and only benefit the economic interests of those able to invest (Douglas & Savulescu 2010,

Synthetic biology is still considered an emerging science. Most, if not all, of its available tools remain in the controlled lab environment. For the sake of discussion, synthetic biologists and conservationists hypothesize how the tools could be implemented in the field in beneficial

Modification of an embryo’s DNA is a process almost unprecedented before this century. While in earlier generations the idea of being able to alter a human’s DNA was mostly fictional, today it is a possibility to be a real medical advancement for the human race. The intended use of this medical advancement is strictly for prevention of genetic diseases, disorders, and other mutations present within the DNA. One such example of this is the hopeful prevention of inheritable genetic diseases. An inheritable genetic disease, is a disease only caught by being inherited by the child through the parent’s genetics. Yet with modification of DNA becoming a more realistic possibility, scientist are working to treat children afflicted with such genetic

Thirteen years have passed since the human genome has been decoded. From then on, we knew exactly what makes us human: a string of code telling our cells what to do. Unsurprisingly, the public’s imagination had never been so zealous in discerning what a single biological discovery meant for the future of humanity. Thirteen years ago, news sources buzzed with hot-topic articles warning us of designer babies and man-made crops. Based on the frantic journalistic climate of the time, one might think us normal people would soon be replaced by post-humans. To find crude evidence for the decade’s excitement (or disdain) for the upcoming human genetics revolution, one needs only check google search trends for words like ‘genetic enhancement’ or ‘designer baby.’ Interest peaks around 2003, the year of the human genome project’s conclusion (figure 1). Today, many are not interested in current genetic events. Despite the public’s dwindling interest in the human genome, the scientific community a been working along with increasing fervor.

“Genetic engineering refers to any changes in genetic makeup that result from the direct manipulation of DNA using various technical methods” ( source 1). More simply put, genetic engineering involves cutting, pasting, and/or editing DNA, specifically targeted ones, to produce a valuable effect produce a useful or desirable characteristic in an organism. The results can greatly modify a certain species or even create a new one. The Biotechnology to do such things were only available in the 1970s, making genetic splicing a relatively new compared to other sciences.

The article analyses different views on creating/modifying synthetic life, and provides a comparative exploration of the way practitioners respond to criticism; especially the accusation of “playing God”, to which the practitioners usually assume a defiant attitude or profess

As biotechnologists have learned how to interpret and manipulate genetic code, they have begun to take the useful genetic information from one organism and add it to another. This has become the groundwork of genetic engineering, or synthetic biology. It has allowed researchers to

Gene editing, or genome engineering is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome of a living organism. Genetic modification created by human activity has been occurring since around 12,000 BC, when humans first began to domesticate organisms. This was later to be known as selective breeding, where you take your most desirable organisms and you breed them to get an enhanced offspring.

To create a child or let God create His own wonderful gifts for us? The Lord Jesus Christ began his incarnation as an embryo, growing into a fetus, infant, child, teenager, and adult: “While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:6-7, NIV).

Life is governed by cells, the basic unit. Life exists because of cells. Without cells, there is no life on earth.