Biofaction (Austria)

Advancements in neurosciences and neurotechnologies pose various ethical and social challenges, warranting public/stakeholder engagement. Art, such as short films, can expose audiences to the social aspects of neuro-advancements. The 2019 BIO·FICTION Film Festival, for instance, examined how neurotechnologies shape society, the human body, and mind. Students are one important group of stakeholders, as they are expected to be critical thinkers and change agents. The lived reality of disabled people is impacted by neuro-advancements in many ways. Critical disability studies students are therefore key stakeholders, as their programs and courses encourage them to identify and address social challenges faced by disabled individuals. Therefore, they need to be able to evaluate the social impacts of neuro-advancements. Few studies exist that ascertain the views of critical disability studies students on the social impact of neuro-advancements. Our study sought to amplify the voices of critical disability studies students by analyzing the responses of 89 undergraduates from three courses to six top films from the BIO·FICTION festival. Conducted asynchronously due to COVID restrictions, students watched the films independently and responded to four guiding questions about: a) general thoughts about the films, b) their perceived impact on those watching, c) implications for their anticipated careers involving disabled people, and d) the social impact of neuro-advancements on disabled people. Our findings indicated that the topical (non-)fictional short films effectively prompted students to reflect on the social aspects of neuro-advancements and were well received. However, responses also indicated a need for follow-up discussions – virtual or in-person – to address questions about film content and deepen the discussion and class engagement. Such discussion setups could also inform film festivals aiming to raise awareness about the societal implications of emerging technologies.

The growing field of neurotechnology (NT) is becoming more and more accessible in terms of reduced costs, increasing availability and reliability of materials, and ways to implant devices. As in other engineering fields such as bio-or information technology, there is a growing community of pioneering hackers who (self-)experiment with NT and develop novel applications. While most debates about NT, its goals and ethical ramifications are usually conducted by professionals in the field (neuroscientists, -engineers, -ethicists), little is known within these institutional frameworks about the motivations, goals and visions of neurohackers and how they view ethical ramifications of NT therapeutics vs. human enhancement. In this study we draw on qualitative interviews with 13 of these neurohacking pioneers, who are interacting with NT from a grassroots perspective (i.e., a bottom-up and community/subculture-oriented approach), and shed light on: how they understand themselves in the context of human enhancement; what the role of invasive NTs is when it comes to identifying as a cyborg; if their practices show a clear distinction between therapy and enhancement; whether human enhancement is always about performance, optimization and functionality; and to which extent neurohackers contribute to "mainstreaming" NT.

As a highly promising interdisciplinary field in the life sciences, synthetic biology bridges such diverse disciplines as molecular biology, organic chemistry, IT, and engineering in order to create biological systems which do not exist in nature. As any emerging technology, synthetic biology is accompanied by many hopes and fears, amongst which the way in which it connects to medicine, and specifically how the biological body is viewed and treated, is equally rousing and provoking. The reality of the lab is one thing, another is the vision(s) of the future which synthetic biology inspires: equally fantastic and fundamentally human. Here we analyse several short films from the repository of the BIO·FICTION Science Art Film Festival, a festival which focuses on synthetic biology. The selected films engage with the human body and cover themes such as fantastical cross-species imaginations, the development of new organs, and future forms of geriatric care. Our analysis of these (semi)fictional films, which illustrate cultural reflections of the technological advances brought forth by synthetic biology, serves as a first exploration of how corporeality and the human body is imagined and displayed in these imaginary worlds, and what that might imply about how we view the human body in the present.

Novel biotechnological approaches such as Metabolic Engineering (ME) and New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs) are currently being developed to produce biological compounds for food and non-food products. NPBTs span a range of methods for in vivo production in crops, some of which are classified as GMOs while others aren't. Deploying such techniques will not only provide new opportunities for industry, but also challenges with respect to the regulatory environment. Similarly, the process of communicating these new techniques and their products to stakeholders and consumers will not be without its own challenges. We argue that scientists should engage more with non-scientists, either directly or through collaborators. These engagements should not only be about the science, we suggest, but also explicitly deal with real world ramifications, such as economic, environmental and social issues.

Research on fast-growing microbes holds promise for many industrial applications, including shortening test and trial times in research and development stages and reducing the operation costs for production. Such microbes can be obtained either by selecting naturally occurring variants or via metabolic engineering approaches, either eliminating ‘unnecessary’ or adding necessary pathways affecting growth speed in the cell. Here, we review recent research and development of engineered fast-growing strains in industrial biotechology, with a special focus on vaccine production using (synthetic biology) engineered pathogenic strains. We will discuss whether this represents a security concern and whether the industrial biotech sector needs to pay more attention to issues of Gain-of-Function (GoF) while developing and harnessing these fast-growing microbes. We will also shed a light on the use of in-built biosafety circuits as a way to control the propagation of fast-growing strains, including their capacity to survive in the environment. Other possible GoF concerns raised by the publication of research results in this field will be also addressed. In conclusion, judging from the current development from the field, assessing the potential GoF risks on engineered fast-growing microbes does not lead to a clear generalized outcome. We argue that fast growing strains need to be evaluated in combination with their wild type and engineered characteristics, and require always a case-by-case assessment. Monitoring the progress of the field and proactively raising awareness on the GoF issues among the scientists are important for the further development of the field.

The prelims comprise: Half-Title Page Related Titles Title Page Copyright Page Contents List of Contributors Short CVs of Contributors Preface Acknowledgments Executive Summary