Abstract

Most discussions about the risks associated with synthetic biology tend to begin and end with the same message. That is, in these revolutionary times, when the capabilities for designing and reengineer­ing biological agents are advancing at previously unimag­inable rates but have still not realized their full potential, when risks therefore remain uncertain, and where the actors are generally well‐meaning people who seek im­portant benefits for society and environment, the most reasonable approach is to exercise “prudent vigilance,” to minimize proscriptive oversight, and to avoid judgments about and limitations on research until some elusive date when greater clarity might be achieved. This approach may be useful in allowing scientific research to move forward, but it strikes me as a politi­cal expedient that minimizes conflict between would‐be opposing factions with different values and backgrounds and as an excuse to avoid some difficult problems. Uncertainties about key features of the landscape seem to justify a reluctance to formulate judgments and promote action. I believe there are reasonable kinds of conclusions that can be made right now about when and how to con­duct and publish potentially dangerous research in the life sciences. These conclusions are enabled by a more rigorous examination of the nature of uncertainty in the conduct of experiments in synthetic biology and genetic engineering.