Section I:

The article makes an effort to distinguish between synthetic biology and other
genetic sciences, particularly genetic engineering. Do you think this distinction is
really that important and if so, why?
Do you think giving ordinary citizens the ability to do their own tampering with
synthetic biology is a good idea, or should this right be restricted to established
research universities?
Section II:
This section deals largely with the morality of synthetic biology, and asks about
whether we may not sometimes be going too far. What would be considered
going too far? Is this relevant?
This also talks about creating a balance between humanity and nature, deciding
which practices within synthetic biology that we should permit and which we should
ban. Given what weve discussed so far, is there anything you think we should ban?
Should it end at bacteria and plant life?
How does life play a role in this? Why is harming certain organisms considered
generally acceptable, and others is a crime? Is there some line to this, or is it
arbitrary?
Section III:
What are some thoughts on the potential of bringing back extinct species? Would it
be worth it? Would this be immoral or downright foolish given the species
tendency to fail in nature?
The author gives some suggestions for how we might work with synthetic organisms
without directly affecting the environment, such as physical barriers or designing
the organisms so that they couldnt survive in the wilderness. Which of these do
you think would be the most efficient?
Should RA or CBA be used when assessing whether or not to proceed with a
synthetic biology project? Can each be used for different things?