The Genesis Machine by Amy Webb and Andrew Hessel
Gist
We ignore growing strides in biotechnology to our detriment. The exponential growth of synthetic biology will do more than assist us, it will allow humanity to design and select some of our most personal attributes. However, the field’s nascency makes futuristic predictions near-impossible. In The Genesis Machine, Webb and Hessel use imaginative scenarios to better prepare us for the opportunities and pitfalls coming our way.
Some scenarios enable interplanetary colonies, while some design fetuses for military service. None are outlandish; they are all rooted in technologies that are viable today. Amidst all their scenarios, the authors categorically say synthetic biology will soon revolutionize medicine, the environment, and the global supply of food. They identify nine inherent risks, such as dual-use biotechnologies, a wealth-created genetic divide, and the ethical and legal status of near-human hybrid species.
Webb and Hessel have three policy recommendations—banning research that makes viruses more dangerous, a global blockchain ledger to record genetic sequences, and a licensing system for synthetic biology. The authors emphasize the current dangers of having no synthetic biology regulations, and hope the five scenarios galvanize action towards policy overhaul.
Paraphrasing George Box, all prophecy is wrong, but some is useful. As with models, a predicted scenario’s effectiveness can only be judged against its intended purpose. The Genesis Machine by Webb & Hessel describes the opportunities and risks posed by synthetic biology. If it was intended to predict the exact nature of biotechnology in 2030 or 2040, it does so poorly. However, it aims to educate people about the technology’s revolutionary potential. It does so superbly, and makes a strong case that evidence-based scenario planning helps prepare the world for novel, non-linear phenomena.
This essay proceeds in four parts. It opens with a brief overview of the book and its purpose, subsequently discussing the characteristics of its ‘futures’ approach. It evaluates whether this approach is suitable for synthetic biology, and concludes with my takeaways about scenario planning. It does not address the specifics of synthetic biology (the authors do that far better), but rather how the book analyses and presents the future(s).
Overview
The book does not specify the nature of future technology, but rather illustrates its possible impact. The authors themselves say “these scenarios should leave you with more questions than answers. Our intention is to spark debate and discussions about how synthetic biology might create better futures for all of us.”[13] They suggest several use cases, ranging from a synthetic biology app store to interplanetary biological ‘teleportation.’[14] These possibilities aren’t offered as certainty, but as a tool to engage readers in thinking about the range of possible futures. Simultaneously, they aren’t entirely implausible. By grounding these possible futures in technologies that either already exist or are in development, the mini-scenarios and five illustrative scenarios are all ‘coherent from the point of story and system.’[15]
The book has four sections—Part One explains the history of synthetic biology, and Part Two the current bioeconomy and inherent risks. Part Three details five speculative scenarios about different biotechnologies, and Part Four concludes with the authors’ recommendations. My ignorance of biotechnology makes me the book’s target audience, and I am not convinced about a particular scenario’s likelihood. Instead, I am cognizant of synthetic biology’s multiple possible futures, and am better prepared to engage with the technology as it evolves. The following sections explain why this meets the book’s purpose.
Future(s) in The Genesis Machine
Rather than listing the book’s exact scenarios, this section details the authors’ approach to studying different aspects of the future.
Time
The authors’ temporal views affect their view of the future strongly; our understanding of the shape of time can determine how we view the reality of the future.[16] Webb and Hessel do not view the future as teleological, or already in existence. They note synthetic biology isn’t random, but it also isn’t linear and logical, making it difficult to identify specific linear paths.[17] They recognize that a set of possible futures exists depending on the decisions made today, but also that we cannot predict the exact future.[18] In other words, they see the flow of time as multilinear and complex, with several non-deterministic futures.
Uncertainty and Epistemic Humility
Webb and Hessel acknowledge the future is unknown and unknowable.[19] They realize it is impossible to precisely predict the next breakthrough in synthetic biology, and that rigid future plans are futile.[20] Furthermore, they highlight the last several decades’ advances in biotechnology, which will make the future of synthetic biology unknown, unknowable, and unique (UUU). Consequently, the existence of a UUU future necessitates considering several plausible futures. These range from the use of DNA to store data instead of hard drives, to the lack of regulatory clarity in case of a cyber-biological attack.[21]
The authors evoke some analogies structurally similar to synthetic biology, such as the evolution of the first telephone into today’s satellite-enabled internet.[22] Despite this, they recognize synthetic biology’s uniqueness, and do not extrapolate more from the analogy than superficial similarity. They draw no conclusions, instead illustrating the speed and nature of revolutionary technology. This example, as well as the authors’ choice to pose ‘what if’ questions rather than ‘this will’ statements, shows they acknowledge the shortfalls of certainty. Instead, they encourage the possibility of distinct futures to aid policy discussions concerning synthetic biology.[23]
Plausibility
The authors’ deference to uncertainty should not suggest their scenarios are unrealistic or imaginative fiction. The five primary scenarios proposed are rooted in technology that is either close to maturity or is enabled by plausible technological evolution.[24] This emphasis on evidence-based scenario planning is crucial for the success of their approach. The presence of multiple, plausible, and unknown futures, combined with the stated objective (to educate), explains their inductive approach to scenario planning.[25] Rather than studying specific driving forces of change on a narrow set of futures, they seek to create imaginative worlds influenced by myriad forces. They aim to educate the reader rather than determining the likeliest outcome.[26] To summarize, the authors of the book created a diverse set of plausible futures to better prepare for the future, because the possibility of multiple unknown, unknowable, and unique futures confounds specific predictions.
Suitability
The previous section details how Webb & Hessel approached the future(s), and how this approach was influenced by the peculiarities of synthetic biology. Though they navigated these constraints well, this does not imply their approach did the subject justice. Was their methodology suitable for studying the evolution of synthetic biology? Might another approach have provided more concrete predictions about the future(s)? Would specific probabilities allow us to better prepare for the future? I argue no, because the growth and impact of synthetic biology is not similar to a comparison class of past analogies, and because this growth and impact does not manifest in linear ways.
The authors make several references to the surprising impacts of synthetic biology, past and present. Examples include the various approaches within the Human Genome Project, the expectations from biofuels, and the unintended consequences of some gene editing.[27] In all cases, the speed and/or impact of change were not anticipated, and often defied expectations. Similarly, though analogies involving telephones and computers are used, they are recognized as only superficially similar.[28] They are not structurally similar, nor large enough to create a representation class that can aid in predicting the future(s). Synthetic biology is therefore indeed novel, and undergoes non-linear change. There are no base rates to help predict its evolution, nor any historical parallels to draw inspiration from.
Simultaneously, (perhaps resultantly) the authors choose to educate rather than predict. They keenly want to increase trust in science, and aid conversations that help synthetic biology achieve its greatest possible value.[29] In their words, “encouraging ‘what if?’ questions today mitigates ‘what now?’ questions in the future.”[30] The optimal way forward is not to assign probabilities to certain paths down a decision tree. Instead, one must create conditions to expand the range of possibilities down every fork of a decision tree, which the book does abundantly.
Though understood differently in other contexts, wisdom of the crowd can be appropriated to mean something else here. For a technology slated to impact humanity in myriad ways, the ‘crowd’ should be highly educated to its possible outcomes. For the ‘crowd’ to deal with unique, vexing futures, they are better served engaging with a range of plausible futures. The goal is not to aggregate reactions to these futures for predictive power. Instead, conversations for better preparedness for the future involve the greatest number of plausible futures imagined, providing individuals with the building blocks to their own imagined futures. In this case, the building blocks are plausible, evidence-based scenarios involving synthetic biology that elicit the wisdom of the crowd by widening the decision tree of possible futures, rather than narrowing them to fewer paths.
To summarize, synthetic biology’s novel and non-linear nature prevents the use of analogies and base rates to predict its growth. It exists in a complex system that prevents practical prophecies about its nature ten, twenty, or thirty years down the line. These limitations, when squared with the objective to educate necessitates tools that spur practical debate. To this end, the authors do the subject justice by using evidence-based imagination to create plausible scenarios.
Conclusion
My takeaways from this book ranged from the ethical implications of eating synthetic, cultured human meat to the societal implications of billionaires (and maybe multi-trillionaires) not ageing. It prompted thoughts of a Nunn-Lugar-like response to biosecurity, as well as the reversibility principle and phase shifts with regard to advanced biotechnology.[31] However, the authors’ approach to the subject makes me curious about the impact of scenario planning on System 1 and 2 thinking, especially for organizational use. [32]
My own System 1 response to the book seems obvious; my schemas created instinctive reactions to different sections that are unique to me, or maybe common to a large group of people. For example, my obsessive familiarity with nuclear policy prompted thoughts of the stability-instability paradox while reading about battlefield applications of biological warfare.[33] The availability heuristic acts strongly here—because it is easy for me to recall texts about deterrence and levels of conflict, I think advances in synthetic biology would manifest in similar ways. This also feeds into the representativeness heuristic, which leads me to believe that superficially similar ‘weapons of mass destruction’ will have similar impacts. In the unfortunate event that biological weapons increase in number and novel applications, my confirmation bias may skew only towards their similarities with nuclear weapons.
Simultaneously, engaging with imaginative scenarios and being confronted with new concepts also engaged System 2 thinking. I could not read this book on autopilot; various sections required careful thought to digest new ideas and implications. Many of the concepts of synthetic biology did not fit neatly into my existing schemas, and may demand I rework the filters that process the world around me. In doing so, it influences my immediate, instinctive reactions to similar subjects in the future. While engaging with topics of biosecurity in the future, my System 1 thinking (availability, representativeness, and confirmation heuristics) will be rooted in this book.
I do not seek to reinvent the wheel here; the field of psychology has undoubtedly studied feedback loops between System 1 and 2 thinking (or their parallels) outside decision-making. Jacques Lacan, for instance, remarked on the role of language in structuring the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious.[34] However, the feedback loop between System 1 and System 2 thinking could also influence organizations and scenario planning.
To illustrate, my System 1 and 2 thinking were influenced by The Genesis Machine after only two reads. How might they change if I used evidence-based imagination to actually create plausible scenarios? How might they be different if I developed scenarios inductively with a large team, or alone archetypically? How would greater familiarity with the scenarios affect my availability and representativeness heuristics in other situations? Would participating in scenario planning worsen my confirmation bias? How would organizations benefit from scenario planning and also minimize the large number of biases it creates? If scenario planning is the sole province of external actors or siloed teams, are decisionmakers deprived of benefits to their System 1 and 2 thinking that evidence-based imagination provides?
Asking questions is altogether too easy, and these are only a few this book generated. Some may already have been answered, and some may just be waffling for the sake of waffling. That said, I am still struck by the influence of scenarios on instinctive and analytical thinking. I do appreciate the book for alleviating my ignorance of synthetic biology, but I am also excited to pay attention to heuristics when I engage in imaginative scenario planning.