Biodata Risks and Synthetic Biology: A Critical Juncture

Diane DiEuliis, Charles D. Lutes, J. Giordano
{"title":"Biodata Risks and Synthetic Biology: A Critical Juncture","authors":"Diane DiEuliis, Charles D. Lutes, J. Giordano","doi":"10.4172/2157-2526.1000159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The tools of synthetic biology and the life sciences are rapidly advancing, as the ability to apply classical engineering to biological systems creates increasing possibilities for innovations in health and medicine, materials science, energy and agriculture. Intrinsic to these capabilities is the mounting ‘digitization of biology’, as the genetic code and its related metadata (including translated proteins, associated functions, herein referred to as “biodata”) are amassed in order to engineer biology for specific purposes. The full spectrum of risks associated with the compilation and use of a wide range of biodata has not been fully identified or comprehensively understood. Further, divergences in traditional attitudes about security among disciplines, namely, biological sciences, engineering, information technology, and data science, complicate discussions on approaches to risk mitigation. To provide a more unified perspective and clarity, we propose that there are unique risks associated with the digitization of biology, represented by overlapping concerns of biosecurity and privacy. We discuss these in three categories of risk: 1) pathogen risks; 2) manufacturing risks, and 3) risks to individual privacy that can allow human harms. Further, we note that there is insufficient address or treatment of these risks in the formulation of ethics, policy and governance. Mitigation of risks will require characterization of all three spheres of risk, acknowledgement that they may require different solutions, and engagement of divergent disciplines and stakeholders to design solutions.","PeriodicalId":15179,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.1000159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The tools of synthetic biology and the life sciences are rapidly advancing, as the ability to apply classical engineering to biological systems creates increasing possibilities for innovations in health and medicine, materials science, energy and agriculture. Intrinsic to these capabilities is the mounting ‘digitization of biology’, as the genetic code and its related metadata (including translated proteins, associated functions, herein referred to as “biodata”) are amassed in order to engineer biology for specific purposes. The full spectrum of risks associated with the compilation and use of a wide range of biodata has not been fully identified or comprehensively understood. Further, divergences in traditional attitudes about security among disciplines, namely, biological sciences, engineering, information technology, and data science, complicate discussions on approaches to risk mitigation. To provide a more unified perspective and clarity, we propose that there are unique risks associated with the digitization of biology, represented by overlapping concerns of biosecurity and privacy. We discuss these in three categories of risk: 1) pathogen risks; 2) manufacturing risks, and 3) risks to individual privacy that can allow human harms. Further, we note that there is insufficient address or treatment of these risks in the formulation of ethics, policy and governance. Mitigation of risks will require characterization of all three spheres of risk, acknowledgement that they may require different solutions, and engagement of divergent disciplines and stakeholders to design solutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物数据风险和合成生物学:一个关键的结合点
合成生物学和生命科学的工具正在迅速发展,因为将经典工程应用于生物系统的能力为健康和医学、材料科学、能源和农业领域的创新创造了越来越多的可能性。这些能力的本质是不断增长的“生物学数字化”,因为遗传密码及其相关元数据(包括翻译蛋白质、相关功能,此处称为“生物数据”)被积累起来,以便为特定目的设计生物学。与广泛生物数据的汇编和使用相关的全部风险尚未得到充分确定或全面了解。此外,生物科学、工程、信息技术和数据科学等学科之间对安全的传统态度存在分歧,这使关于降低风险方法的讨论复杂化。为了提供一个更统一的视角和清晰度,我们提出与生物学数字化相关的独特风险,以生物安全和隐私的重叠关注为代表。我们将这些风险分为三类:1)病原体风险;2)制造风险,3)可能造成人身伤害的个人隐私风险。此外,我们注意到,在制定道德、政策和治理方面,对这些风险的处理和处理不足。要减轻风险,就需要确定所有三个风险领域的特征,承认它们可能需要不同的解决办法,并让不同学科和利益攸关方参与设计解决办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Various Compounds with Glyprolines on Acth-4-7 Effects in Pain-Induced Aggressive-Defensive Behavior in Rats Features of Bioterrorism Information System Rift Valley Fever in Chronic Carrier and Liver Manifestations Changes in U.S. Biosecurity Following the 2001 Anthrax Attacks Global Biothreat and Cross-Border Resource Management: Some Findings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1