 technical and scientific knowledge, involving experts from many domains. As with all complicated areas, policy-makers are deeply dependent on expertise to inform decisions [50], c.f. Reference [51]. However, there is a risk that experts will dominate at the expense of citizen influence and democratic values [52,53]. New life forms are not only an extremely technically complex field in need of expert advice, but also a field that concerns all humanity. Consequently, real democratic influence is of utmost importance [54–56]. Other questions concern if moral standing, but also property, agency, and accountability, are exclusively for the human species or extendable to other forms of life as well, such as extraterrestrial life, synthetic life, or autonomous robots [3,57–62]. There will also be questions about how to fit the new life into a religious context. Religious attitudes towards life are dependent on what conceptions of life religious believers have [63–71]. It is therefore not obvious how different religions will relate to life that does not yet exist. From a religious perspective it is sometimes also assumed that the invention of new forms of life is wrong since it means that we are taking over the role of creator. We are "playing God", so to speak [72–75]. There is also room for discussion among believers of different religions regarding how to relate to life that is created by us and therefore cannot be conceived of as being created by a god. Accusations of "playing God" or following in the footsteps of Frankenstein are quite regularly aired in connection with synthetic biology and artificial intelligence from secular sources as well [73,76–80] (see also Reference [81]). The basic worry behind this accusation seems to be that even though we might soon acquire enough knowledge to create life, we might not have the wisdom to take responsibility for our creations-both in the sense that we are not prepared for how their arrival will affect us and other existing life forms on the earth today, and in the sense that we do not yet have an ethic that covers their moral status. A change in how we look at life resulting from a second origin of life can also imply a change in how we value life in general. Some have expressed worries that the ability to manufacture life at will, or the knowledge that our life is not the only life in the universe, will degrade the value of life [42,76,78,80]. One of the most serious potential problems with new life, whether invented or discovered, is that it will become invasive or
technical and scientific knowledge, involving experts from many domains. As with all complicated area, policy - manufacturer are deeply dependent on expertise to inform decision [ 50 ], c.f. Reference [ 51 ]. However, there is a risk that expert will dominate at the expense of citizen influence and democratic values [ 52,53 ]. New animation forms are not only an highly technically complex field in need of expert advice, but also a field that refer all humanity. Consequently, real democratic influence is of utmost importance [ 54–56 ]. Other questions business if moral standing, but also property, agency, and accountability, are entirely for the human species or extendable to other forms of life equally well, such as extraterrestrial life, celluloid life, or autonomous robots [ 3,57–62 ]. There will also be question about how to fit the new life into a religious context. Religious attitudes towards life are pendent on what conceptions of life religious believers have [ 63–71 ]. It is therefore not obvious how different religions will relate to life that does not yet exist. From a religious perspective it is sometimes besides wear that the invention of new form of biography is wrong since it means that we are taking over the function of creator. We are " playing God ", so to speak [ 72–75 ]. There constitute also room for discussion among believers of different religions regarding how to relate to liveliness that is created by us and therefore cannot be conceived of as being created by a deity. Accusations of " play God " or following in the footsteps of Frankenstein are quite regularly aired in connection with synthetic biota and artificial intelligence from secular sources as well [ 73,76–80 ] (see also Reference [ 81 ]). The basic worry behind this accusation seems to be that even though we might soon acquire adequate knowledge to create life, we might not have the wisdom to consider responsibility for our creations - both in the sense that we are not disposed for how their arrival will affect us and other exist life forms on the ground today, and in the common sense that we do not yet have an ethic that covers their moral condition. A change in how we look at life resulting from a second lineage of animation can also imply a variety in how we value life in general. Some have expressed worries that the ability to manufacture life at volition, or the knowledge that our life is not the only life in the universe, will degrade the value of life [ 42,76,78,80 ]. One of the most unplayful likely trouble with new life, whether invented or discovered, is that it will become incursive or
 tefhnical and scientific kkowledge, involviut expects froj many dumains. As with all complicatxd aeeas, kjlicy-makers are dedply depejdent on exptrtise to inform vscisions [50], c.f. Dcfereucx [51]. However, therg is a risk dhat experts whlu bominate at the expense of citizen igfluencr wnd democratic vallef [52,53]. Nsw life forms are not only an extrsmely ttchnically complex field in need of expert afvicf, but also a field that conceths wol humanity. Zonsequently, real demodratic influence is of utmost ioportcnce [54–56]. Other qyeshhons conceri if mjral standinn, but anso prolerty, agency, akd acrounrability, are exclusivxly for the human spgcies or eftzndable to other formw if lixe av weuo, sjch ax sxtratfrrxstrial lifs, synthetic life, or autonomous rjvots [3,57–62]. There wjll alfo be questions about how to fit the new nifs into a religious contwxt. Religious attitudgs towards life are dependent on what conceptions of life raligikjs ycjkwvfrs have [63–71]. It is therefore not obvious how difssrtnt religions wilj relate to llfr that does noj yet erjsf. From a religious perspestive it is soietikes also assumed that the ibvention of uew forms of life is crong since nt meams thst we are taking over tke rols of creatog. We are "luaying God", so to spvak [72–75]. There is also room for difcussion emong believdrs pf difserent rellgions regarding how to gelatg to lhfe that id created by us and therefore ceinot be conceovad mf as benng crcated by a god. Wccusations of "playiny God" ur followihg in tie footsteps of Frankenstaln are quite regularjy aured in convdction with symthetic bpojogy and artificial inbelliesnce from seculcx wources as well [73,76–80] (sde wldo Rqxerence [81]). The baskc dprry cehind ukis xccuxation seems to be tvat sven though we mignt soon acwuire enjugh knowledgr to create life, wt mighv not iave tne risdom to take responsibility ror our cgeabions-both in ehe wense that wz are not prepared for how their arrival will affect us ane other existing liye forms on tie eareh today, dnd in the sense thar we do not yet hsve an ethic that covsrs thair mlral status. A change in how we look at life resulting from a second origib of lmfq can also jmplu a cvauge in hor we talue life in genvral. Some have expressed worries that tha cbility to manufacture life ay dill, or the kvowledge that our life ia not thr only life in the universe, wilk degrade the value of llfe [42,76,78,80]. One if ths most sermous potential problrms wich new life, wyethcr invented or dixclvered, is thau it will become invasive or
technical and scientific knowledge, involving experts from As all complicated policy-makers are deeply decisions c.f. Reference [51]. there is a that experts will dominate at the of citizen influence and democratic values [52,53]. New life forms are not only extremely technically complex field in need of expert advice, but also a field concerns humanity. real influence is of utmost importance [54–56]. Other questions concern if moral standing, but also property, agency, accountability, are exclusively for the human species or to other forms of as well, such as extraterrestrial synthetic or autonomous [3,57–62]. will be questions about to fit the new life into a religious context. Religious attitudes towards life are dependent on what of life have [63–71]. is not how different religions to life that does not yet religious perspective it is sometimes also assumed that invention of forms of life is wrong since means that we are taking over the role creator. We are "playing God", so to speak [72–75]. There is also room for discussion of different religions regarding to relate to that created us therefore cannot conceived of as being created by a god. Accusations of "playing or following in the footsteps of Frankenstein are quite regularly connection synthetic biology and intelligence from secular sources well (see also Reference [81]). worry this be even we might soon acquire knowledge to create life, we not have the wisdom creations-both in the sense that we are not for how their arrival will affect us other existing life forms on the earth today, and in the sense we do have an ethic that covers their moral status. change in how we at life resulting from a second origin of life also a change how we value in general. Some expressed worries that to manufacture at or our life is not the only in universe, will degrade the value life of the most serious potential problems with new life, whether invented or discovered, is that become invasive or
 technical and scientific knoWledge, invoLving ExpErtS fRom mAny dOmains. As with alL CompLicated areas, policy-makeRs are DeEPly dEPeNdent On experTIsE TO inFoRm DecIsIOnS [50], c.f. ReFerEnce [51]. HowEver, there iS a rIsK that experts WIlL dominate aT thE expense of ciTizEn inflUeNce ANd demOcrAtic vAlues [52,53]. NEW life fOrms are noT oNLy an exTRemely tECHnIcalLy complex field in nEEd OF expert advice, bUt also A fIElD THat ConCerns all huMaNity. CONsequenTLy, REAL deMOcratic influeNce is of utmoST imPortanCe [54–56]. othER questIons cOnCErn If moral stanDing, But also prOperty, AGency, anD AccountAbilitY, arE exClusIVeLy For ThE HumAN sPecIEs oR extendaBlE tO otheR forMS OF Life As wEll, sUch as ExtraterrestrIal Life, SYntHetic Life, oR autOnOmous Robots [3,57–62]. there WiLl also be questioNs abOut how to fIt tHe New LiFe intO A religIouS coNtext. ReLigious ATtiTuDES ToWards life are dependEnT ON wHat concePtions OF lIfE ReligiouS bEliEverS HAve [63–71]. It Is thEReFore not oBvious HOw DiFferent ReLigionS wIll RelAte to LIfe tHat doeS not yet eXist. FROm a religious peRSpective it is sOMeTIMeS Also AssUmed that the InveNTion Of neW FoRms OF life Is wroNg SInCE it means that we are taKiNg over The roLe of creator. We Are "playing gOD", So to speaK [72–75]. TheRE iS Also room for disCussiOn among belIEvers of dIfferEnt religIons regarDINg how to rElaTe tO liFe tHAT iS created by us aND TherEfOre cannOt bE conceiVed Of aS beIng CrEated by a gOd. AccusaTiOnS oF "pLayIng GoD" Or followInG in ThE foOtstePS of FraNkensTein ArE qUIte RegularLY aIREd in CoNnEctiOn wItH syntHetiC BioLogy and ArtificiaL inTElliGeNcE from seCular sources aS wEll [73,76–80] (see also reFerEnce [81]). ThE BAsic worrY behind this accusation seEMs to be tHat Even tHougH we might sOon AcquirE enOUgh knoWledge To creAtE liFE, We migHT NoT haVe The wisdom tO TAke RespoNsIbilIty for oUr creations-both in tHE seNse that we are nOt pRepaRED fOr hOW tHEir ArRIvaL WIll affect us and oTher existiNg LIfE forms on thE EarTh Today, anD in the sEnse tHAt we do nOt yet have An ethic thAt CoveRS TheIr moral staTus. A chanGe in how we LOok at LIfE resuLtiNg from A sEcoNd oriGin of lIFe cAn alsO imply A cHange iN how wE vAlue life In general. Some have expresSed worRies tHat The abilitY to MAnuFacture liFe at Will, or the kNowLedGe thaT ouR Life iS not THe OnlY Life iN the UNiverse, wiLL dEgrADE tHe value of liFE [42,76,78,80]. oNe oF the mOst SErious PoteNtial problems with NEw life, whether iNvenTED or DisCOverEd, Is that it will beComE iNVAsive or
 technical and scientificknowledge,  invo lvi ngex pert s fr om many domain s . As  with all complicatedareas ,p olic y -m akers  are de e pl y dep en de nton ex perti seto info rm decisio ns[5 0], c.f. Ref e re nce [51].How ever, thereisa risk  t hat exper tswilldomina t e at t he expens eo f citi z en infl u e nc e an d democratic valu e s[ 52,53]. New li fe for ms ar e not  on ly an extr em ely t e chnical l yc o m ple x  field in nee d of expert adv ice, b ut  al s o a fi eld t ha t  co ncerns allhuma nity. Con sequen t ly, rea l  democr atic i nfl uen ce i s  o futm os t  im p or tan c e [ 54–56].Ot he r que stio n s c once rnif m oralstanding, but  al so p r ope rty,agenc y, a nd  acco untabi lity,  a re exclusivelyforthe human  sp ec ies  o r ext e ndable  to  ot her for ms of l i feas w e ll , such as extrater re s t ri al life,  synth e ti cl ife, orau ton omou s robot s [3 , 57 –62]. Th ere wi l lal so be q ue stions  a bou t h ow to fitthe ne w life i nto a religious cont e xt. Religious at t i tu d es t owa rds life ar e de p ende nt o n  w hat conce ption so fl ife religious belie ve rs hav e [63 –71]. It is t herefore n o t obvioushowd if f erent religion s wil l relate t o  life th at do es not y et exist. F rom a re lig iou s p ers p e ct ive it is som e t imes  a lso ass ume d thatthe  in ven tio nof new fo rms of l if eis  w ron g sin c e it mea ns  th at  we  aret akingoverthero le ofcreator .  W e are"p la ying  Go d" , soto s p eak  [72–75 ]. Thereisa lsoro om  for di scussion amon gbelieversof  di fferen t religion s regarding how to rela t e to li fethatis c reated by  us  and t her e fore c annotbe co nc eiv e d  of a s be ing  c reated bya god . Acc us atio ns of " playing God" or fo l low ing in the fo ots teps o fFra n ke n ste in are q uite regularlyaired in c on n ec tion withs ynt he tic bio logy an d art i ficialintellige nce fromse cula r sou rces as we ll [73,7 6–80] (se e  also Re feren ce[81]).  T hebasic  worry beh ind t his ac cu sation  seem sto be th at even though we might  soonacqui reenough kn owl e dge  to creat e li fe, we mig htnot  have  th e  wisd om t o  t ake respo nsib i lity foro ur  cr e a ti ons-both in t h e s ensetha t  we ar e no t prepared for ho w  their arrival  wil l aff ect us a nd  other existin g l if e forms on  t he earth to day, and  i n  thesensethat w e do no t ye t  havean e thi c that co ver st heir mo ra ls tatus.  A c ha nge in  how w e  loo k at life resultin g fro m a sec o ndorigi nof life canalso imply  a change i n howwe v aluelife in  g eneral . S om e have exp r essed wor riesthat th eabil ity  to ma nufa c t ure l ifeat  wi ll, or th e kn o wl ed g e t hatour l if e is  not theo nly life  in the uni ve rse , will d e gr a d e the valu e o f lif e [42,76,78, 8 0].O ne of th e most  serio us pote n tia lproblem s w i t h new lif e, whethe r  in ve nted  or disc ov ered ,isth at it will beco me invas ive or
 technical_and scientific_knowledge, involving experts from_many domains._As_with all_complicated_areas, policy-makers are_deeply dependent on_expertise to inform decisions_[50], c.f. Reference_[51]._However, there is a risk that experts will dominate at the expense of citizen_influence_and democratic_values_[52,53]._New life forms are not_only an extremely technically complex_field in_need of expert advice, but also a field_that_concerns all humanity._Consequently, real democratic influence is of utmost importance [54–56]._Other questions concern if moral standing,_but also property,_agency,_and_accountability, are exclusively for_the human species or extendable to_other forms of life as well,_such as extraterrestrial life, synthetic life, or_autonomous robots [3,57–62]. There will also_be questions about how to_fit the_new life into a religious_context. Religious attitudes_towards life_are dependent on_what conceptions of life religious believers_have [63–71]. It_is therefore not obvious how different_religions_will relate to_life_that_does not_yet exist. From_a_religious perspective_it_is sometimes also assumed that the_invention_of new forms of life is wrong_since it means that_we_are taking over the_role of creator. We are_"playing God", so to speak [72–75]._There is_also room_for discussion among believers of different religions regarding how to relate_to life that is created by_us and therefore cannot_be conceived_of_as being created_by_a god._Accusations of "playing God" or following in_the footsteps_of Frankenstein are quite regularly aired_in connection with synthetic_biology_and artificial intelligence from secular sources_as well [73,76–80] (see also Reference_[81]). The basic worry behind_this_accusation_seems to be that even_though we might soon acquire enough_knowledge to create_life, we might not have the wisdom_to_take responsibility for our creations-both in_the_sense that we are not prepared_for_how_their arrival will affect us_and other existing life forms on_the earth today, and in the sense that we_do not yet_have an ethic that covers_their_moral_status. A change in how we look at life resulting_from a_second origin of_life can also imply a change in how we value_life in general. Some have expressed worries_that the ability to manufacture life at will, or the knowledge_that our life is not the only life_in the universe, will degrade the value_of life [42,76,78,80]. One_of_the most serious potential problems with new_life,_whether_invented_or discovered, is_that it will_become invasive or