Technological Progress in the Life Sciences

Janella Baxter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70099-7_3

2021-01-01

Abstract:The new gene-editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, been described as “revolutionary” This paper takes up the question of what sense, if any, might this be true and why it matters. I draw from the history and philosophy of technology to develop two types of technological revolutions (Hughes, Technological momentum in history: Hydrogenation in Germany 1898–1933. Oxford University Press, New York, 1969; Wimsatt, Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007; Constant, The origins of turbojet revolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1980; Scaife, Sci Am 252(4), 1985). One type of revolution involves a technology that enables users to change a generatively entrenched structure (Wimsatt, Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007). The other type involves a technology that works within a generatively entrenched structure, but as a result of incremental improvement becomes the “new normal” technology for a community (Scaife, Sci Am 252(4), 1985). In what follows, I argue that if CRISPR-Cas9 is revolutionary at all – and I do not take a stand on the issue – it is in becoming the “new normal” molecular technology across biology labs. By contrast, a technology that has the potential of being revolutionary in Wimsatt’s sense is the orthogonal tRNA technique developed by Peter Schultz’ synthetic biology lab. Whether or not CRSIPR-Cas9 or the orthogonal tRNA technologies are revolutionary, I propose to treat these two types of putative revolutions as distinct types of technological innovation. I argue further that observing distinctions between types of technological innovation can be useful for tracking the epistemic and normative consequences that technology raises.