Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Synthetic biology promises creative approaches to transform environments, but on whose terms? This paper asks how synbio efforts to tweak other-than-human life might challenge, change or bolster Indigenous Australian multi-species relations and vice versa to reshape environmental responsibilities.

Long abstract:

Synthetic biology (synbio), which takes an engineering approach to biology by editing DNA, promises creative approaches to transform environments and mitigate Anthropocene-influenced challenges. One example is engineering a gene drive (biased inheritance) to preference a particular genetic trait such as a single sex for all offspring and, in doing so, reduce reproduction possibilities for an invasive species or boost a native or keystone species’ population whose existence is threatened. Another example is engineering an animal to detoxify and bioremediate polluted environments. In such cases, synbio seeks to edit (other-than-human) biology to transform environments in ways that (some) humans see as sustainable. But what happens when human/other-than-human categories collapse to reshape ethical and regulatory responsibilities? What can STS scholars and synthetic biologists learn from Indigenous Australian ontologies that see plant and animal species not as separate to, but rather an extension of, human kin, expanding humancentric senses of sustainability? Drawing on desktop review and synbio discussions with Torres Strait Islanders, this paper explores how synbio techniques that aim to tweak other-than-human life might challenge, change or bolster Indigenous Australian multi-species relations and environmental responsibilities. Conversely, it also asks how Indigenous Australians’ perspectives might challenge synbio assumptions to strive towards more inclusive and intertwined efforts at sustainability.