Synthetic Biology and Other Benign Technologies that Could Have a Dark Side: Interview with Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
Interview with Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Academic Project Manager at the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology
How do you see the future in fifty years?
Fifty years is a long time frame. If we looked forward to the present day from 50 years in the past, there are some things that we could have predicted. For instance, global population growth and pressure on natural resources, water in particular. However, we couldn’t have predicted the global impact of the internet. My view is that there is likely to be something like that which will change things so predominantly – a potential technological wildcard.
First, let’s mention some things we can anticipate. There will be so many more people in the world; a peak of ten billion is being projected later this century, with a small drop following that. We’ll need all sorts of technologies for more efficient resource use, for instance in freshwater use, renewable energy and materials. We can say that humanity is at a crossroads. We can solve these problems - and if we do, we’ll create a better future - but if we don’t, it will create a lot of pressures for the worse.
But there are things we can’t anticipate; wildcard events. Artificial intelligence is likely to be one of them. It is a general purpose technology that may impact all areas of science, technology and the economy.. Everything could be faster, better and cheaper. This has tremendous benefits. However, there are also huge challenges. Unemployment is one of the major issues; automation means replacing jobs, while it is uncertain if new types of jobs will pop up. With increasing use of AI, would there still be jobs? There are also risk and safety concerns that relate to advanced artificial intelligence. We will continue to develop faster, more general problem-solving algorithms with the ability to manipulate virtual and real-world resources. There is a risk that unintended consequences of the rules or goals of the algorithms, or errors in our programming, could cause major harm. Algorithms that are “super-human” in speed and general problem-solving could be quite difficult to control.
Which innovations would probably generate the biggest change?
Synthetic biology could become a hugely disruptive technology. Some experts describe it as a combination of biology and the use of engineering principles. Others talk about designing life forms from scratch. And some describe it as “genetic modification (GM) on steroids”. Currently, we are at the proof of principle stage. Researchers have built on-off switches, simple circuits and things like that. Take it together and this could be the first step in building a synthetic organism designed specifically for our purposes. The benefits are tremendous; we could have organisms designed for waste management, or targeted therapies in health and medicine. As these organisms would be completely designed by humans, we should know exactly how all the genetic components making up the organism interact with each other. . This can be contrasted with current GM, where humans introduce single genes to what are essentially natural organisms, and where our understanding of how the entire genome and proteome functions is more limited. So there is the potential for more control and fine-tuning. However, we may not always predict how synthetic organisms will interact with natural ones and the environment.
Risks related to synthetic biology are also related to the speed of technological development. The technology needed to create results with high impact is getting cheaper and more widespread. That poses a risk and a regulatory challenge that is entirely new. We are already familiar with biohacking and the Do-It-Yourself community. At the moment this is all very small scale and encourages a lot of people to become interested in science. When it matures, there is the risk of letting organisms out in the wild. For example, take the hypothetical example of organisms that transform waste products into useful products like hydrocarbons. In the wild it may out-compete natural organisms, or interact with the environment in other unexpected ways.
Furthermore, what seem like benign technologies could have a dark side. People who deliberately want to cause a lot of harm in a bioterrorist attack could also have easy access to these technologies. Innovations with a positive world-bettering intention could do harm in the wrong hands. For instance, the digital biological converter, a technology a little like a “3D printer for biological organisms” under development by Craig Venter, would be beneficial to preventing disease as it allows people to print vaccines tailored to the disease remotely. It is easy to imagine how this technology could be negatively used by terrorists.
What can we do to anticipate the future and make it a better future? Which issues should we address?
The most robust way of making the future better is by combining a number of approaches. It is important to look at the trends and try to figure out clever ways to prevent the problems we anticipate. We know interventions that seem to work and we need to apply them. This approach needs to be combined with a broad way of looking at wild cards. Engage with thought leaders in different fields, combine their insights and look at the broader picture. Be flexible enough to integrate what may happen and have a transformative effect. It is important to think about the potential consequences of important new scientific developments and technologies ahead of time, even if we don’t have 100% certainty about when – or – if – they will happen.
What does it ask from futurists?
Not enough people are thinking outside the box; thinking about how much a new development could change anything. Futurists are flexible and open to new things. This mindset is very useful in anticipating future change. However, it is valuable for futurists to be careful not to confuse thinking about possibilities and uncertainties with fantasy. This means being severely rigorous and following the rules of physics. It is important to clearly distinguish between sci-fi and science. If we know with 99.9% certainty that this cannot be done without a change in how we understand the laws of physics, it is probably not worthwhile to dedicate a lot of scientific research to it. It is also important to consider insights from engineering on what is feasible, what can be practicably designed and what can not. For instance, in nanotechnology and synthetic biology, if we see similar structures in biology, it can provide good evidence that it is possible. There are many “proofs of principle” in biology and the natural world.
Predictions are often wrong. What is a sensible way to say things about the future? How to navigate between confidence and uncertainty?
It is dangerous to make strong and precise predictions about what will happen in the future and when it will happen, when most often we cannot have this level of certainty. Unfortunately, such strong statements are often what the media and public wish to hear.
The difficulty about talking about uncertainty is a general problem in science. When it comes to conveying scientific outcomes to the public it is always difficult to communicate uncertainty. This can be interpreted as a lack of knowledge or incompetence, when in fact the opposite is true. Figuring out how to communicate on these topics better is a challenge. Science journalism is improving, and good journalists try to shy away from or qualify strong soundbites. The website “The Conversation” is a nice example of this. As a general principle, there needs to be a two-way dialogue between scientists and the public. With a lot of these controversial technologies, researchers need to engage with the public, include them in plans and work together to solve the world’s problems. Scenarios can be valuable tools, as they allow us to consider the impact of different possible developments in depth. But you have to be careful as scenarios can introduce biases of their own and act as a primer for a limited set of solutions.
This interview with Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Academic Project Manager at the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, takes place in a series of discussions with the keynote speakers of An Interesting Afternoon - The world in 50 years and how do we get there? This event by the Dutch Future Society takes place at April 11, 2014 in Amsterdam. For registrations, follow this link.
This post was originally published at www.futuristablog.com
Essays and comments posted in World Future Society and THE FUTURIST magazine blog portion of this site are the intellectual property of the authors, who retain full responsibility for and rights to their content. For permission to publish, distribute copies, use excerpts, etc., please contact the author. The opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Future Society takes no stand on what the future will or should be like.
Free Email Newsletter
To sign up for Futurist Update, our free monthly email newsletter, enter your email in the box below and click Save.
Without the ocean Earth would be a pretty inhospitable place even though we lie within our Sun's Goldilocks Zone. Those of you who live by the ocean can probably figure out why that is the case. You see the ocean is a temperature moderator and a heat transport mechanism that evens out the climate across the planet.
The horror of 298 lives snuffed out by a missile is reverberating around the planet this week after last Thursday's downing of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777. How could missile technology meant to shoot down warplanes get used to destroy a civilian aircraft?
I remain skeptical about the economics of industrial technologies for carbon capture. Almost every project started has been heavily subsidized by government. But for the operators without government subsidy there seems to be no return on investment. First of all, all existing industrial carbon capture technologies are expensive to implement.
On a recent driving trip, my wife and I became immersed in the audio version of one of Tom Clancy’s last novels, titled “Threat Vector.” Without giving away too much of the plot, a Chinese super-geek villain has hatched a plan to hack into our most secure networks and blackmail people with their darkest secrets to subversively cause chaos and disruption for the American government.
If you work for the post office these days then you already have an inkling of what the 21st century will do to many jobs. Texting, email, and mobile connectivity have forever altered the way we communicate. How many of us still write letters on paper and mail them?
Some of you who know me personally know that in my formative years I started studying geophysics in university before a physical accident laid me up for more than a year and I in an epiphany changed my major to Islamic Studies and Medieval History. So I was both a science and history nerd all at the same time. Well nothing has changed.
The government in South Korea is organizing its manufacturing sector along with academics and ministries to tackle and develop 3D printing as an economic opportunity. Rather than rely on the hits and misses of free enterprise, the South Korean leadership is directing all interested players within the country to come up with a roadmap that will lead to innovation in manufacturing and the creation of new jobs.
Edward Cornish has served as the World Future Society’s lead visionary, founder, first President (1966-2004), and Editor of THE FUTURIST magazine (1967-2010). Since stepping away from daily editorial management, he has remained on the WFS Board and has been our Futurist in Residence, contributing book reviews and essays on “Futurists and Their Ideas.” And he’s come to the office faithfully every day.