Responsible Innovation in Synthetic Biology: concepts, concerns and commercialism
Lead Research Organisation:
Newcastle University
Department Name: Sch of Geog, Politics and Sociology
Abstract
Bioethical exploration of the responsible development of synthetic biology and its application to higher organisms.
A socio-ethical exploration of the relationships between academic research and commercial application and how responsibility impacts on the shift from one to the other.
Government policy and governance of biotechnology, and the drive towards a knowledge economy.
Synthetic biology and the bioeconomy of sustainable growth, considering impacts on environmental aspects such as architecture, water, and the use of gene drives in disease mitigation.
The promises made for these technologies to contribute to the economy, address major societal concerns such as climate change and food security, and revolutionise healthcare are all areas that are open to critical examination and reflection.
A socio-ethical exploration of the relationships between academic research and commercial application and how responsibility impacts on the shift from one to the other.
Government policy and governance of biotechnology, and the drive towards a knowledge economy.
Synthetic biology and the bioeconomy of sustainable growth, considering impacts on environmental aspects such as architecture, water, and the use of gene drives in disease mitigation.
The promises made for these technologies to contribute to the economy, address major societal concerns such as climate change and food security, and revolutionise healthcare are all areas that are open to critical examination and reflection.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| Simon Woods (Primary Supervisor) | |
| Natalie Partridge (Student) |
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP/R51309X/1 | 30/09/2018 | 29/09/2023 | |||
| 2314141 | Studentship | EP/R51309X/1 | 02/01/2020 | 01/01/2023 | Natalie Partridge |
| Description | As synthetic biology develops, food and agriculture is one sector in which it can be applied. My thesis (forthcoming) presented the findings from interviews of 30 synthetic biology stakeholders from the research community, policymakers, industry, funders and NGOs about the future of synthetic biology in UK food and agriculture. My research answered three linked research questions: (1) What are the ways in which synthetic biology is constructed by this sample of its stakeholders? (2) Why did these stakeholders construct synthetic biology in these ways? And (3) What are the implications of these constructions for UK food policy? Findings This research found that past experiences of GM controversies, which I summarise with the term 'GM Trauma', shape participant views about synthetic biology. Past controversy experiences form part of a background framework of worldviews and understandings that in turn inform constructions of synthetic biology's definitions, boundaries and status as potentially controversial or risky or not. These long shadows of past controversy are cast as assumptions about others' knowledge (or lack thereof), perceptions about which types of views can be considered 'scientific' and 'unscientific', and what kinds of information and considerations 'count' as relevant for policy decision-making. This frames discussions about how publics might be engaged with, communicated with or managed; and underpins views about the status and value of scientists and science in policy arenas, sometimes leading to the exclusion of other stakeholders. Participants also perceived past controversies to have resulted in a reactive, stifling and 'draconian' governance framework, but which is "probably strong enough" to manage synthetic biology's risks to food safety and the environment. In a policy landscape that participants sensed to be shifting, GM Trauma therefore has practical implications. Perceptions of past controversy and conflict seem to manifest as an expectation of future controversy and conflict. This contributes to a sense of insularity, driven by participant views about their own roles and about the attitudes and roles of others. The vast landscape of disparate stakeholders, insularity of scientific and policy communities, over-reliance on scientific expertise in synthetic biology-related policymaking spaces and the exclusion of other viewpoints combine to promote siloed thinking and a narrow focus on technoscientific notions of risk, safety and economic priorities. This has been found to be continuing despite the detailed scrutiny and advice offered by social scientists working closely with synthetic biologists for many years. Conclusion Synthetic biology's potential to play a part in food policy priorities around, for example, environmental sustainability, human health and nutrition, livelihoods, and social and ethical considerations, remains unclear. It is vital that stakeholders debate how to integrate these aspects with present economic and research priorities. A deeper consideration of the implications of past controversy on stakeholder thinking may open new avenues for questioning current policy approaches, who is involved in policy decision-making, and how relationships can be built, or mended, between stakeholder groups. This is something to be recommended and encouraged. |
| Exploitation Route | Publications are forthcoming and these will be of interest to social scientists, policymakers and practitioners in the field, particularly given that the topic is highly relevant to the shifting policy landscape in the UK post-Brexit. |
| Sectors | Agriculture Food and Drink Government Democracy and Justice |
| URL | https://zenodo.org/records/10804433 |