“Imagine a word processor like the one you use to write on your computer or mobile phone. But instead of texts, you can edit the DNA code, upload gene sequences into software, and after writing or editing DNA, be able to print a new molecule from scratch using a 3D printer. The technology of DNA synthesis (that is, the transformation of the digital genetic code into molecular DNA) has improved exponentially.” Here’s what futurist Amy Webb and geneticist Andrew Hessel write in The Genesis Machine—Our Passion to Rewrite Life in the Age of Synthetic Biology (Public Affairs, 2022), unhesitatingly characterizing the synthetic biology revolution as a “Genesis Machine.”

The basic DNA synthesis technology is called CRISPR (clustered regularly spaced short palindromic repeats). In 2023, Keydarithmos will publish The Codebreaker, Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of Humanity by Keydarithmos by Walter Isaacson, which clearly describes the invention of this great tool. Currently, therapies that use CRISPR experimentally address only a few diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, some cancers, and blindness. They are so costly that, if adopted on a larger scale, they could bankrupt health systems. Treating a single person with sickle cell anemia with CRISPR costs more than $1 million. Of course, this will change in a few years.

Subsequent applications are unimaginable because, in fact, with CRISPR we take one more step beyond “breaking” the code of life. Now, scientists say, with the help of genetic engineering, we can gradually rewrite it, “posing as God.” We are facing a development of Promethean proportions. We are opening a box that no one can know what cosmological changes it could bring. With tools like these, we can program biological systems in the same way that we program our computers. Consider how much digital technology has changed lives, and consider what synthetic biology is capable of. Soon we will be able not only to get rid of diseases, but also to radically change our body.

“We are at the beginning of a massive transformation of life,” the authors of the Genesis Machine write, “the genesis machine will soon determine how we will have children, how we understand family, how we cope with illness, how we make our homes and how we will In their very interesting study, the authors discuss possible future scenarios, analyze risks, and make three specific recommendations. The profits that this new industrial revolution promises are dizzying, as are the risks.

The origins of synthetic biology and biotechnology in general date back to the discovery of insulin in 1978. Today, synthetic biology is combined with artificial intelligence, identifying patterns using large datasets, and creating new treatments. mRNA vaccines are the first example. However, in a few years it will become a general-purpose technology, the authors argue. We are still in the early stages of the so-called “bioeconomy”. Synthetic biology will change medicine, food processing and agricultural production, as well as the environment itself. From the most extreme, artificial womb, to the most hopeful victory over cancer, biotechnology will bring about unimaginable changes. Synthetic meat, biofuels, sustainable fashion are just some of the notable things we’ll see in the future.

For Webb and Hessel, the risks associated with synthetic biology are significant. First, they consider intentional and unintentional malicious use of said technology to be inevitable. They then point to the undeniable fact of the unpredictability of biology. They warn that the confidentiality of genetic data will become a major security concern as such data could be used to cause personal harm. At the same time, the regulatory framework is still far behind. This fact, combined with the fact that current legislation tends to stifle innovation, is not very promising. Thinking back to the 1997 film Gattaca, one of the greatest potential dangers we may face in the future will be the genetic divide, the genetic disparity between the haves and have-nots. It is possible that synthetic biology will lead to new geopolitical conflicts or release hybrid life forms. The authors fear that all these dangers will be multiplied by the devastating effect of misinformation already existing on scientific issues. They even fear a possible social collapse.

“The birth machine will soon determine how we have children, how we perceive the family, how we feed ourselves.”

The solutions proposed by the author’s duet are understandable. First, the development of biological weapons should be prohibited worldwide. “The last thing we need right now is a biological arms race,” they write. Second, we need Bretton Woods for Biotechnology. In 1944, after World War II, the Allied Powers laid the foundations for a new monetary system. Then the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created. Something similar needs to be done today for biotechnology, the authors argue. “Instead of controlling and regulating a global pool of money, our proposed system will manage a global pool of genetic data.” Third, seeing the rise in the number of biohackers, they recommend the creation of an international licensing system for individuals and groups involved in synthetic biology.

Finally, they point out that many countries, including the United States, are completely unprepared for the possibility of cyber-biological warfare, and therefore they should act quickly.

One of the key ethical dilemmas arising from the possibility of editing human genes, and in particular the CRISPR method, is whether humanity should move beyond the use of this technology for therapeutic purposes and in attempts to modernize people. In his latest book, The Philosophy of the Perfection of Man (Armos), the philosopher Theophanis Tassis satisfactorily examines the outcome of this conversation, laying down some useful philosophical foundations.

Essentially, he lays out the theories for and against human enhancement, makes key distinctions, provides definitions, and pretty much clarifies what the underlying stakes are. He, like the rest of us, agrees with the therapeutic dimensions, but with regard to modernization, he rather takes the side of the so-called “bioconservatives”, such as the philosopher Michael Sandel.

Tassis rejects the “radical upgrade” by Nick Bostrom and other transhumanists (he translates the term transhumanism as transhumanism and identifies it with a kind of religion) and clearly leans towards the “wise upgrade” option.

“Although I do not consider intellectual modernization desirable,” he writes, “I do not consider it undesirable either, because it could possibly protect humanity from danger, be useful in space exploration, protect the health of citizens, help those who work” . in hazardous or unhealthy activities, and perhaps some to promote a happier life.” Tassis, unlike transhumanists, believes that our biological limitations, and in this case death, make us human.