Search

The Building a Synthetic Cell (BaSyC) consortium — launched in 2017 — proposes to create “an autonomous self-reproducing cell that can sustain itself, replicate and divide”. I joined this consortium to explore the bioethics of creating synthetic cells, by embedding philosophical reflection into research practices.

Although microbiome signatures have been identified in various contexts (ie, pathogenesis of non-communicable diseases and treatment response), qualified microbiome-based biomarkers are currently not in use in clinical practice. The Human Microbiome Action consortium initiated a Delphi survey to establish a consensus on the needs, challenges, and limitations in developing qualified microbiome-based biomarkers. The questionnaire was developed by a scientific committee via literature review and expert interviews. To ensure broad applicability of the results, 307 experts were invited to participate; 114 of them responded to the first round of the survey, 93 of whom completed the second and final round as well. The survey highlighted the experts’ confidence in the potential of microbiome-based biomarkers for several indications or pathologies. The paucity of validated analytical methods appears to be the principal factor hindering the qualification of these biomarkers. The survey also showed that clinical implementation of these biomarkers would only be possible if kitted and validated molecular assays with simple interpretation are developed. This initiative serves as a foundation for designing and implementing public-private collaborative projects to overcome the challenges and promote clinical application of microbiome-based biomarkers.

In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault (1963) practiced historical epistemology, combining two scholarly crafts, history of medicine and philosophy of science. With his philosophical hammer and stethoscope, he assessed epistemic configurations: landscapes of discourse and practice. Philosophical readers are intrigued by the epistemological ruptures he discerned, the sudden upheavals in the ways in which physicians observed, treated, looked at, listened to, and wrote about their patients. Foucault was an “archaeologist”, signalling the sudden emergence and disappearance of “discursive formations”, pointing to abrupt and remarkable changes in the ways in which phenomena are described, analysed, and categorised. (Foucault 1969). For an archaeologist, all (anonymous) potsherds and coins stemming from a particular formation (or discursive layer) share a number of basic similarities: they were all produced in a similar vein. Likewise, within a particular discursive formation, all texts are basically similar. And although author names are mentioned by Foucault, the author’s identity does not really count. Foucault is interested in the basic logic at work, anonymously almost. Notwithstanding the countless discussions and debates between authors, a spontaneous unanimity can be discerned, concerning basic presuppositions that remain unquestioned. At the same time, there are striking differences between discursive formations (between layers within libraries). Historians tend to be critical about this approach. Add more detail, and the epistemic fault lines become increasingly diffuse,—the theorem of epistemic discontinuity becomes difficult to uphold.

Ten years after introducing the RRI concept, a reflection on its key ambitions seems called for, now that RRI enters the global arena. This paper focues on the key challenge that RRI is currently facing: epistemic inclusion. From the beginning, there has been the awareness that RRI must be open to multiple voices and perspectives, coming from academia, and also from society at large. Besides representing impressive bodies of knowledge, academic disciplines face knowledge gaps as well and must reach out to other knowledge forms, e.g. practical, experiential, and indigenous knowledge. This paper analyses the challenges involved in epistemic inclusion while outlining viable pathways towards addressing them, based on experiences in European projects as our ‘laboratory'. After discussing interdisciplinarity, participatory research, and epistemic pluralism, while also addressing the academic reward system. Special attention is given to indigenous knowledge as a case study for epistemic pluralism.

Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members’ contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.

Background: Metastatic cancer is often experienced by patients as a death sentence. At the same time, translational scientists approach metastasis also as an interesting phenomenon that they try to understand and prevent. These two sides of the same coin do not mask the considerable gap that exists between the laboratory world of scientists and the life world of patients. Funding agencies nowadays increasingly demand researchers to be responsive to the values and priorities of patients and public. One approach to bridge this gap and to increase the impact of science is patient and public involvement (PPI). A concise literature review of PPI research and practice in this paper revealed that although PPI is often deployed in translational health care research, its methodology is not settled, it is not sufficiently emancipatory, and its implementation in basic and translational science is lagging behind. Here, we illustrate the practical implementation of PPI in basic and translational science, namely in the context of HOUDINI, a multidisciplinary network with the ultimate goal to improve the management of metastatic disease. Methods: This paper reports on a societal workshop that was organized to launch the holistic PPI approach of HOUDINI. During this workshop, societal partners, patients, and physicians discussed societal issues regarding cancer metastasis, and contributed to prioritization of research objectives for HOUDINI. In a later stage, the workshop results were discussed with scientists from the network to critically review its research strategy and objectives. Results: Workshop participants chose the development of metastasis prediction tools, effective therapies which preserve good quality of life, and non-invasive tissue sampling methods as most important research objectives for HOUDINI. Importantly, during the discussions, mutual understanding about issues like economic feasibility of novel thera

The BaSyC consortium, whose acronym stands for building a synthetic cell, proposes to develop a synthetic cell from the bottom up. In the context of this joined effort, the Rathenau Instituut and Radboud University Nijmegen have organised the Future Panel on Synthetic Life, consisting of societal experts, to explore the social challenges, dilemmas, and possible societal impacts of synthetic cell research, and to advise how this research may contribute to a fair and sustainable future. The goal for the Future Panel is to create an initial agenda for future political, academic, and public debate on the synthetic cell. The profile of science and technology is two-sided. On the one hand, they act as drivers for problem-solving, progress, and emancipation, but techno-scientific innovation can also give rise to disruptive threats. Therefore, societal reflection should be timely and anticipatory. Rather than asking what risks and benefits are involved, the question will be how to engage society in such a way that synthetic cell research can become a joint endeavour, responsive to societal hopes and concerns. Consequently, the Future Panel aimed to: • map the social challenges and dilemmas in a society where a synthetic cell exists; • identify conditions under which synthetic cell technology can be considered beneficial for society; and • advice on how these conditions can be realised. To contribute to this, the Future Panel discussed the role and perspectives of key stakeholders (academia, government and governance, industry, and civil society), besides more specific issues like public responses, biosafety, biosecurity, and intellectual property rights during multiple online and offline meetings within a period of two years. This position paper summarises the most important points of conversation, shared insights, key challenges, dilemmas that were discussed during these meetings, resulting in four recommendations, as a starting poin

This paper presents a mutual confrontation of the oeuvres of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) and Jacques Lacan (1901–1980), highlighting their relevance for the planetary challenges we are facing today. I will present their views on technoscience, environmental pollution and religious faith, focussing on human genomics as a case study. Both authors claim that technoscience reflects a tendency towards symbolisation: incorporating the biosphere (living nature) into the “symbolic order’ (Lacan) or ‘noosphere’ (Teilhard). On various occasions, Lacan refers to Teilhard’s concept of the hominization of the planet and their dialogue culminates in a ‘final conversation’ between Teilhard and Lacan in 1954, during a reception organised by the journal Psyché. I will conclude that the Teilhard-Lacan dialogue is highly relevant for current debates concerning the Anthropocene, as a moment of global awakening and global crisis. Processes of hominization allowed humans to become literate beings, littering the planet as well: humans as literate litterers. Whereas Teilhard argues that technoscience and self-directed evolution are about to culminate in what he refers to as point Omega, Lacan rather stresses the hazards involved in this optimistic desire towards all-encompassing synthesis, unification and fulfilment.

Synthetic biology is often seen as the engineering turn in biology. Philosophically speaking, entities created by synthetic biology, from synthetic cells to xenobots, challenge the ontological divide between the organic and inorganic, as well as between the natural and the artificial. Entities such as synthetic cells can be seen as hybrid or transitory objects, or neo–things. However, what has remained philosophically underexplored so far is the impact these hybrid neo–things will have on (our phenomenological experience of) the living world. By extrapolating from Walter Benjamin's account of how technological reproducibility affects the aura of art, we embark upon an exploratory inquiry that seeks to fathom how the technological reproducibility of life itself may influence our experience and understanding of the living. We conclude that, much as technologies that enabled reproduction corroded the aura of original artworks (as Benjamin argued), so too will the aura of life be under siege in the era of synthetic lifeforms. This article zooms in on a specific case study, namely the research project Building a Synthetic Cell (BaSyC) and its mission to create a synthetic cell–like entity, as autonomous as possible, focusing on the properties that differentiate organic from synthetic cells.

In this article we present the results of a biology teaching module offered at university bachelor level for law students and social sciences students in Lima, Peru. The objective was to trigger philosophical reflection on the notion of nature (cognitive dimension) and to assess if and to what extent the use of poetry contributes to the students’ understanding of nature by adding emotional and conative (desire for action) dimensions. We accounted three dialectical moments of natural sciences and nature poetry in history and discussed their meaning in the context of biology teaching nowadays. We also highlighted the importance of poems as semiotic resources for science learning and explored bibliographic accounts of similar studies. Our results indicate that nature poetry fosters a holistic view of nature, allowing students to combine knowledge with value concerns, and cognitive with conative and emotional dimensions. Also, poetry allows them to connect or confront scientific information with traditional indigenous knowledge. Finally, we found that poetry afforded students a sense of freedom to present and discuss their personal experiences with nature. We concluded that this module can be used as a supplementary educational tool in biology courses and those meant to inspire action and reflection in the face of global environmental challenges.

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

In Seminar XVII, entitled The reverse side of psychoanalysis , Jacques Lacanpresents his famous theorem of the four discourses. In this rereading I propose todemonstrate that Lacan’s theorem entails a transferable dialectical method for studyingprocesses of knowledge production, enabling contemporary scholars to develop adiagnostic of the present, notably scholars interested in issues such as the vicissitudesof knowledge production under capitalism, the crisis of the university and theproliferation of electronic gadgets. In short, I will argue that Lacan’s theorem of the fourdiscourses entails a dialectical diagnostic of technoscientific knowledge during latecapitalism. First, the four discourses will be briefly outlined, emphasising the extent towhich they entail, albeit in an ambivalent manner, a return or detour to the logic ofHegel. Subsequently, each discourse will be presented in more detail, emphasisinghow they allow us to come to terms with the current status of technoscientificknowledge. Special attention will be given to the political backdrop of the seminar: thecrisis of the university. Finally, I will discuss the historical dimension, outlining both thepredecessor of the four discourses and their current predicament under neoliberal/capitalist conditions.

Imagine a group of philosophy students, about to complete a Master’s program in continental philosophy, who are invited to visit a life sciences research laboratory, somewhere on a university campus. Having studied some of Heidegger’s quintessential works, such as Being and Time and The Question of Technology, they suddenly find themselves exposed to racks of test-tubes and automated sequencing machines. Suppose that, thrown into such an “unworldly” lab environment, they ask themselves how to interpret their experiences in a Heideggerian manner.