Introduction: bio-engineering in the 21st century

This chapter describes the aims and approach of the STOA project, ‘Making Perfect Life: Bioengineering (in) the 21st Century’. The main goals of the project were: • To identify major overarching trends that are visible in the development of four fields of 21st-century bio-engineering, and the societal and political challenges related to these trends • To discuss a number of specific developments which exemplify the major trends in the four fields of bio-engineering in more detail and highlight a range of more urgent questions for regulatory policies in these fields The aim of the project’s Monitoring Report, which was published in 2011, was the identification of major trends. The report described a broad range of developments in four fields of bioengineering: the engineering of the body, the brain, intelligent artefacts (in the field of artificial intelligence) and living artefacts (in the field of synthetic biology). The present Final Report discusses the findings of four case studies which highlight specific developments in each of these four fields: the rise of human whole genome sequencing, the introduction of neurodevices into the market, the capturing of the psychological and physiological states of users by means of information technology, and the pursuit of standardization in synthetic biology. The starting point of our analysis in the Monitoring Report was the assumption that developments in 21st-century bio-engineering are shaped by the convergence of four key technologies: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences (NBIC). An important aspect of NBIC convergence is the increasing interaction between the biological and the physical sciences. The Monitoring Report described this growing interaction in terms of two catchphrases: ‘biology becoming technology’ and ‘technology becoming biology’. The first phrase expresses the idea that scientists and engineers increasingly look at living organisms in mechanical terms, while the second phrase expresses the idea that engineers are increasingly introducing lifelike features such as selfassembly, cognition and learning into technology. The ‘Making Perfect Life’ project adopted both catchphrases as expressions of two bioengineering megatrends, taking a trans-technological perspective which suggests that all four fields of 21st-century bio-engineering are shaped by these two megatrends, which together constitute a new engineering approach to life. Both megatrends point to a future in which the distinction between biology as a science of life and engineering as a science of artefacts will gradually disappear. In other words, both trends evoke a future in which we engage in ‘making perfect life’, with ‘life’ conceived of as a phenomenon that can be controlled and constructed. In many respects this future is uncertain and speculative. The Monitoring Report showed how both megatrends can be traced in a diversity of current developments in the four fields of bio-engineering and that it is important to distinguish between technologies that already exist, technologies that are in the making, and technologies that belong to future scenarios which may currently be considered ‘science fiction’ On the basis of this comprehensive and future-oriented analysis of developments in 21stcentury bio-engineering, we have identified a broad range of societal issues that need to be addressed. The growing interaction between biology and technology will increasingly challenge familiar, value-laden categories that are deeply rooted in the history of our culture, such as the distinctions between ‘life’ and ‘matter’ or ‘nature’ and ‘machine’. The increasing manipulability of nature that the two bio-engineering trends promise, raises high hopes, but also concerns about the hubris of assuming total control. As a result, the two megatrends may become potential causes for unease and controversy within society and further fuel existing bioethical debates. Against this background, the Monitoring Report discussed a variety of questions that may be raised by developments in the four fields of bio-engineering and framed these issues in terms of our trans-technological view by connecting them to the two megatrends. Again, it is important to emphasize that any such discussion must distinguish between issues that we may face today or in the near future from issues that might arise in a more distant future. As a policy option, the Monitoring Report emphasizes the need for the European Commission to take a more prominent, wide-ranging and proactive role in stimulating reflection on and public debate about the role of bio-engineering in the 21st century in Europe. Based on the findings of the Monitoring Report, this Final Report focuses on those developments in the four fields of bio-engineering that are most significant to European policymaking as they may have short term implications for existing regulatory regimes in these fields. The analysis of the different cases uses a conceptual framework which highlights, on the one hand, the sociotechnical dynamics of the developments studied and, on the other, the extent to which these various developments challenge current forms of regulation. Each case study points to important regulatory challenges in the context of European policymaking. For example, how do we protect individual privacy when DNA sequencing sets no limits to the availability of genetic information? Is the European regulation on medical devices sufficient to ensure the safety of newly developed devices that modulate brain activity? What about the privacy of our own thoughts and feelings when information technology develops tools that monitor our state of mind? Can we make synthetic biology a building block to a sustainable future by standardizing life? In terms of policy options which respond to such questions, our main conclusion is that European policymakers will have to move beyond bioethics to biopolitics, that is, take active steps towards the revision of established regulations or the development of new regulatory frameworks. Based on the findings of each case study we will further specify the steps that might be taken in this direction. Chapter 2 of this report offers a more extensive summary of the major findings of the Monitoring Report, explaining the broader context and the starting point for the discussion of the case studies of more specific developments in each of the four fields of bio-engineering in Chapters 3 to 6. Chapter 7 concludes with an analysis of the findings of the case studies and addresses the question of how to cope with the whole spectrum of European governance challenges emerging from the various developments in 21st-century bio-engineering