"
Team:HZAU-China/Humanities
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
<p class="figuretext">Figure 1: Where is Synthetic Biology Going?---the "ultimate destination".Source: Towards Co-evolution of Information, Life and Artifcial Life. Masami Hagiya and Ibuki Kawamata. Natural Computing and Beyond. Page41.</p> | <p class="figuretext">Figure 1: Where is Synthetic Biology Going?---the "ultimate destination".Source: Towards Co-evolution of Information, Life and Artifcial Life. Masami Hagiya and Ibuki Kawamata. Natural Computing and Beyond. Page41.</p> | ||
| - | <p class="highlighttext">Synthetic biology may or may not have walked half the distance illustrated above, but perhaps it doesn't hurt thinking a little bit ahead, even if that's where we are yet to reach. One would argue that synthetic biology doesn't need to go so far as to reach the "ultimate goal" referred to by Hagiya et al, for mass utilities and applications are already emerging with every tiny step forward. It’s true; however, thinking afar also has its advantages, for afar is where more possibilities dwell. After all a synthetic biologist is more than a bricklayer | + | <p class="highlighttext">Synthetic biology may or may not have walked half the distance illustrated above, but perhaps it doesn't hurt thinking a little bit ahead, even if that's where we are yet to reach. One would argue that synthetic biology doesn't need to go so far as to reach the "ultimate goal" referred to by Hagiya et al, for mass utilities and applications are already emerging with every tiny step forward. It’s true; however, thinking afar also has its advantages, for afar is where more possibilities dwell. After all a synthetic biologist is more than a bricklayer; he has the aspiration of an architect.</p> |
| + | <p class="highlighttext">Synthetic biologists might not be thinking about accelerating evolution on purpose when they work, implying so would be a potential insult for some synthetic biologists who regard their work as a pure joy unto itself. However, when we ponder about various implications of their work in hindsight, we might reluctantly piece the word ``artificial evolution'' and ``synthetic biology'' together. Cutting out a gene and paste it into another being, it's a creative process that shares more common spirit with artists, designers and handcrafters than with the thrilled aspirants, utopians and zealots. (Though sometimes artists, designers and crafters ARE aspirants, utopians and zealots)</p> | ||
<p class="highlighttext">In another word, synthetic biologists are not ambitious on purpose; however, not on purpose is not enough. Synthetic biology is still exploring its exact definitions, defining it according to our best wishes might not be a completely honest way to face the problems that will arise sooner or later because of its unaddressed implications. We don’t think synthetic biology should have the word "artificial evolution" anywhere in its definition, but we do think that it is an implication of what synthetic biology is capable of doing.</p> | <p class="highlighttext">In another word, synthetic biologists are not ambitious on purpose; however, not on purpose is not enough. Synthetic biology is still exploring its exact definitions, defining it according to our best wishes might not be a completely honest way to face the problems that will arise sooner or later because of its unaddressed implications. We don’t think synthetic biology should have the word "artificial evolution" anywhere in its definition, but we do think that it is an implication of what synthetic biology is capable of doing.</p> | ||
<p class="highlighttext">Evolution as a theory is controversial [4], but evolution as a word is not. The difference is well told by Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Newton Keas in The Meanings of Evolution [5], where they describe and unpack the six most common definitions of "evolution” in most biology textbooks. Various definitions make its meaning nebulous, but one brief description should be non-disputable: change through adaptation or mutation[6]. Other debates, such as change of what kind, by what means, wherefrom... are not ours to take on. So the phrase "artificial evolution” that we use here uses evolution as a word simply equivalent to: change, whether through adaptation or genetic mutation.</p> | <p class="highlighttext">Evolution as a theory is controversial [4], but evolution as a word is not. The difference is well told by Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Newton Keas in The Meanings of Evolution [5], where they describe and unpack the six most common definitions of "evolution” in most biology textbooks. Various definitions make its meaning nebulous, but one brief description should be non-disputable: change through adaptation or mutation[6]. Other debates, such as change of what kind, by what means, wherefrom... are not ours to take on. So the phrase "artificial evolution” that we use here uses evolution as a word simply equivalent to: change, whether through adaptation or genetic mutation.</p> | ||
| Line 297: | Line 298: | ||
<p class="figuretext">Figure 2: Conceptual similarities and differences of Artificial Evolution and SynBio</p> | <p class="figuretext">Figure 2: Conceptual similarities and differences of Artificial Evolution and SynBio</p> | ||
<p class="highlighttext">However, if we link synthetic biology with artificial evolution like this, some more questions arise. The question of the ``wherefrom'' of evolution is well disputed between evolutionists and creationists and is not of our current concern, but the question of ``whereto'' of artificial evolution has seldom been addressed.</p> | <p class="highlighttext">However, if we link synthetic biology with artificial evolution like this, some more questions arise. The question of the ``wherefrom'' of evolution is well disputed between evolutionists and creationists and is not of our current concern, but the question of ``whereto'' of artificial evolution has seldom been addressed.</p> | ||
| - | <p class="highlighttext">Though it seems that we are all content with the bricks we have and can make; after all, a successfully engineered BioBrick is already art, feat, and use enough. Comparing with the present that we are gifted with and that its own possibilities has not been exhausted yet, the future is too far for us to seriously talk about it without sounding self-assuming and ridiculous. However, since we agree with what William Gibson said in The Economist: ``The future has already arrived, it's just not evenly distributed yet![9]'' We guess that, if we cannot be comprehensive, then at least try to be original | + | <p class="highlighttext">Though it seems that we are all content with the bricks we have and can make; after all, a successfully engineered BioBrick is already art, feat, and use enough. Comparing with the present that we are gifted with and that its own possibilities has not been exhausted yet, the future is too far for us to seriously talk about it without sounding self-assuming and ridiculous. However, since we agree with what William Gibson said in The Economist: ``The future has already arrived, it's just not evenly distributed yet![9]'' We guess that, if we cannot be comprehensive, then at least try to be original!</p> |
| - | <p class="highlighttext">And we have written three subparts:</br> | + | <p class="highlighttext">And we have written three subparts, all of which are connected to the topic of Artificial Ecolution, tightly or loosely:</br> |
<span style="font-weight:bold;">Ethics: </span>A Theoretical 4-D Model: Paradigm Designed for Future iGEMers to Analyze Ethical Problems in Synthetic Biology</br> | <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ethics: </span>A Theoretical 4-D Model: Paradigm Designed for Future iGEMers to Analyze Ethical Problems in Synthetic Biology</br> | ||
<span style="font-weight:bold;">Aesthetics: </span>To Mimic the Intricacies of Nature—Our Design Principles</br> | <span style="font-weight:bold;">Aesthetics: </span>To Mimic the Intricacies of Nature—Our Design Principles</br> | ||
Revision as of 17:09, 16 October 2014
<!DOCTYPE html>
Humanities and Aesthetics
Beyond Artificial Evolution
--An exploration of "other" implications of our project
Overview
In this page we first explain the relationship between synthetic biology and artificial evolution-a term we came to define—and where our project stand in this picture; then, we explored the ethical, aesthetic and semiotic dimensions of our project in relation to synthetic biology itself.
Ethics
In the ethics part, we explored why most ethical concerns of synthetic biology even exist. We employed a top-down thinking style that reduced the reasons into a simple one of fear and doubt, and explored the psychological reasons of the specific fear and doubt that are related to synthetic biology, drawing support from psychoanalytic schools of thought.
Aesthetics
In the aesthetics part, we explored one of the greatest features of our project: the adventurous and intricate design: our Bio Brick is a Rubik's Cube at your command speaking of functionality. Imagine the possibilities of using a Rubik's Cube to build your building!
Semiotics
In the semiotics part, we explored the metaphysical meaning of the word iGEM in the context of Runic alphabet, the Elder Futhark, and discovered that by interpreting one letter differently, it translates smoothly into a description of our project, too.
Preface: Artificial Evolution
What is it, how it relates to synthetic biology and our project
By artificial evolution people normally mean something either very simple, as when peasants select the cabbage seeds for next year's crossbreed, a practice long existed before Darwin's age[1]; or something somehow nebulous, involving complex design of circuits, algorithms, and a lot of computing[2]. The former has secured its place in the genetics textbooks and we shall leave it there; the latter still gives us plenty of spaces for fathoming so that's where we'll start.
Back in 2012, Masami Hagiya and Ibuki Kawamata did a simplification of Channon's approaches to synthetic biology as described in figure 1 below. They generalized the ultimate goal of synthetic biology as "encapsulated complex systems"[3], which is the (theoretical) direction our project is looking at from a faraway distance (in practice).
Figure 1: Where is Synthetic Biology Going?---the "ultimate destination".Source: Towards Co-evolution of Information, Life and Artifcial Life. Masami Hagiya and Ibuki Kawamata. Natural Computing and Beyond. Page41.
Synthetic biology may or may not have walked half the distance illustrated above, but perhaps it doesn't hurt thinking a little bit ahead, even if that's where we are yet to reach. One would argue that synthetic biology doesn't need to go so far as to reach the "ultimate goal" referred to by Hagiya et al, for mass utilities and applications are already emerging with every tiny step forward. It’s true; however, thinking afar also has its advantages, for afar is where more possibilities dwell. After all a synthetic biologist is more than a bricklayer; he has the aspiration of an architect.
Synthetic biologists might not be thinking about accelerating evolution on purpose when they work, implying so would be a potential insult for some synthetic biologists who regard their work as a pure joy unto itself. However, when we ponder about various implications of their work in hindsight, we might reluctantly piece the word ``artificial evolution'' and ``synthetic biology'' together. Cutting out a gene and paste it into another being, it's a creative process that shares more common spirit with artists, designers and handcrafters than with the thrilled aspirants, utopians and zealots. (Though sometimes artists, designers and crafters ARE aspirants, utopians and zealots)
In another word, synthetic biologists are not ambitious on purpose; however, not on purpose is not enough. Synthetic biology is still exploring its exact definitions, defining it according to our best wishes might not be a completely honest way to face the problems that will arise sooner or later because of its unaddressed implications. We don’t think synthetic biology should have the word "artificial evolution" anywhere in its definition, but we do think that it is an implication of what synthetic biology is capable of doing.
Evolution as a theory is controversial [4], but evolution as a word is not. The difference is well told by Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Newton Keas in The Meanings of Evolution [5], where they describe and unpack the six most common definitions of "evolution” in most biology textbooks. Various definitions make its meaning nebulous, but one brief description should be non-disputable: change through adaptation or mutation[6]. Other debates, such as change of what kind, by what means, wherefrom... are not ours to take on. So the phrase "artificial evolution” that we use here uses evolution as a word simply equivalent to: change, whether through adaptation or genetic mutation.
Artificiality "is the state of being the product of intentional human manufacture, rather than occurring naturally, through processes not involving or requiring human activity [7]." Combining artificial with evolution, we get our own definition of artificial evolution: Causing change, whether through adaptation or genetic mutation, by intentional human manufacture, in organisms.
That sounds familiar, isn't it?
The SyntheticBiology.org describes synthetic biology as "the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems, and the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes"[8]; the iGEM foundation says "a synthetic biologist looks to co-opt and improve upon the genetic blueprints of existing organisms, to design and create novel biological devices and systems." [9]
So, synthetic biology might as well be doing the job of artificial evolution, it's just a different saying with a suffix of "for useful purposes", and with "using standardization" printed in bold. The major difference lies in the purpose: where artificial evolution is to cause change, synthetic biology "looks to co-opt and improve", to "design and create".
Or it could be said:
Figure 2: Conceptual similarities and differences of Artificial Evolution and SynBio
However, if we link synthetic biology with artificial evolution like this, some more questions arise. The question of the ``wherefrom'' of evolution is well disputed between evolutionists and creationists and is not of our current concern, but the question of ``whereto'' of artificial evolution has seldom been addressed.
Though it seems that we are all content with the bricks we have and can make; after all, a successfully engineered BioBrick is already art, feat, and use enough. Comparing with the present that we are gifted with and that its own possibilities has not been exhausted yet, the future is too far for us to seriously talk about it without sounding self-assuming and ridiculous. However, since we agree with what William Gibson said in The Economist: ``The future has already arrived, it's just not evenly distributed yet![9]'' We guess that, if we cannot be comprehensive, then at least try to be original!
And we have written three subparts, all of which are connected to the topic of Artificial Ecolution, tightly or loosely: Ethics: A Theoretical 4-D Model: Paradigm Designed for Future iGEMers to Analyze Ethical Problems in Synthetic Biology Aesthetics: To Mimic the Intricacies of Nature—Our Design Principles Semiotics: Metaphysics of iGEM in the Context of Runic Alphabets
Please, have fun!
Reference
[1] Artificial selection. Accessible at: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30
[2] Mirrors beyond mirrors, puddles of life. P.Hogeweg. Accessible at: http://theory.bio.uu.nl/BINF/ancientpapers/Hogeweg88.pdf
[3] Towards Co-evolution of Information, Life and Artifcial Life. Masami Hagiya and Ibuki Kawamata. Natural Computing and Beyond. Page41. Accessible at: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/165/bok%253A978-4-431-54394-7.pdf?auth66=1412817226_902094e22a2ecc80051ea969b8a693ef&ext=.pdf
[4] Powerhouse of Scientists Refute Evolution, Part One. Brian Thomas, M.S. Accessible at: http://www.icr.org/article/8191/
[5] The Meanings of Evolution. Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Newton Keas. Accessible at: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf
[6] Evolution. Biology-online. Accessible at: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution
[7] Artificiality. Wikipedia. Accessible at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificiality
[8] http://syntheticbiology.org/
[9] What is Synthetic Biology. Accessible at: http://parts.igem.org/Help:Synthetic_Biology
[10] "Books of the year 2003". Books & Arts (The Economist). 2003-12-04. Retrieved 2007-08-06
[11] Channon, K., Bromley, E.H.C., Woofson, D.N., Synthetic biology through biomolecular design and engineering. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 18(4), 491-498(2008)
