Earth Day in Biopolitics
Posted by Jessica Cussins April 22, 2013
Biopolitical Times
Happy Earth Day everyone! The question of how to protect our planet is one of the most pressing of our time, and everywhere you look, there are different ideas about the best way to manage the crises of climate change, environmental disasters, and loss of biodiversity. One solution that has been gaining some popularity lately is synthetic biology. A recent conference at the University of Cambridge in the UK brought together leading conservationists and synthetic biologists to consider how new technologies may be used to benefit the planet.
However, the heart of synthetic biology is not conservation, but creation. Synthetic biologists make headlines because they seem to see themselves as God-like figures who can make the natural world better. It is exactly this kind of hubris that has led to many of the largest environmental disasters. As Biopolitical Times contributor Pete Shanks argues,
Former CGS Staff Associate Daniel Sharp noted,
However, the heart of synthetic biology is not conservation, but creation. Synthetic biologists make headlines because they seem to see themselves as God-like figures who can make the natural world better. It is exactly this kind of hubris that has led to many of the largest environmental disasters. As Biopolitical Times contributor Pete Shanks argues,
The entire approach of designing and controlling nature is at odds with the deepest goals of the environmental movement. We cannot live in harmony with a world we are actively trying to redesign in accordance with our whims.Shanks called this trend for exactly what it is: greenwashing. Collaboration with environmentalists is great PR for a field that poses extreme environmental risks and is entirely unregulated. From the “transparently phony concept” of “de-extinction,” to the news that pharmaceutical giant Sanofi is producing a synthetic malaria drug, which will really amount to “the start of a new hi-tech assault on farmers,” synthetic biology ventures certainly engage the environment; whether they will be good for it is quite another matter.
Former CGS Staff Associate Daniel Sharp noted,
As appealing as they might sound, these grandiose and messianic promises are not only false but dangerous. Synthetic biofuels have been widely criticized (see: 1, 2, 3, 4) as a non-starter solution to the climate crisis, which threaten to harm the environment and prompt massive land grabs in the global South. In addition, the field threatens to re-entrench corporate dominance and global inequality by opening the door to patents on synthetic life-forms and genomes. And none of this is to mention serious risks to public health and worker safety that much synthetic biology research poses.
In honor of Earth Day, here’s to the public policies, and societal and personal changes, that address the root of the problems facing our Earth. One synthetic biologist at Cambridge made the glib statement that this technology will win simply because those in favor of it are younger than those who are against it. (He did walk it back.) Well, here’s one young person who is not convinced that synthetic biology will save us all.
Previously on Biopolitical Times: