Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In science policy, public controversy around synthetic biology has often been presented as a major risk because it could deter innovation. The following inter-related strategies for avoiding contestation have been observed: (1) There have been attempts to close down debates by alluding to the importance and legitimacy of reliance on scientific evidence as input to regulatory processes. (2) Scientific policy advice has stressed sufficiency of existing regulation, economic risks of additional regulation and/or suggestions for monitoring that are limited in scope. (3) Initiatives for self-governance have narrowed the scope of topics for consideration. (4) Engagement with humanities, social sciences and arts has been co-opted for legitimisation and science communication. Although such agendas are of course not ubiquitous, in this paper, I criticise that instrumentally motivated engagement has been supported not only by the scientific community but also by policy institutions and funding bodies. I argue that it is good that this now seems to fuel controversy in the academic and policy realms. As synthetic biology is not the only technoscientific field to see such dynamics, this is also part of the broader context of debate about the governance of science, especially the concept of “responsible research and innovation” (RRI) currently promoted in the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This fits into patterns of argumentation in emerging technologies generally, as set out in [7].

  2. But see its importance in the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap [14].

  3. Within the EC 7th Framework Programme, the project SYNENERGENE (www.synenergene.eu; accessed 15 Sept 2015) explicitly addresses the public engagement and stakeholder mutual learning aspects of RRI with regard to synthetic biology. See also the early elaborate incorporation of RRI in the human practices part of the Valencia Team’s 2013 iGEM contribution. (2013.igem.org/Team:Valencia_Biocampus/HP; accessed 15 Sept 2015).

  4. See progressproject.eu. Other current FP7 Science in Society projects on RRI include Res-AGorA (res-agora.eu), GREAT (www.great-project.eu) and Responsibility (responsibility-rri.eu), which together with ProGReSS constitute the “Group of Four” (Go4) projects. All accessed 22 September 2015.

  5. This was part of an affirmative response in the subsequent volume of the journal by Jay Keasling on behalf of 16 correspondents, including other front-figures of synthetic biology, such as George Church and Wendell Lim, and also the Synberc Policy and Practices leaders Kenneth Oye and Megan Palmer [43]. See also the more critical response by Sam Weiss Evans on behalf of 21 correspondents with many of the social scientists most active in the field (including, as the other communication, Synberc Policy and Practices co-director Megan Palmer) [44].

  6. More recently, ecological risks of synthetic biology have been put on the agenda by the scientific community [61–63], the CBD [3], and the EC [64]. With the challenges posed by genome editing making the issue more virulent [52], calls for regulatory reform (e.g., [55–57]) may gain momentum.

  7. Although interventions in human germ line and embryos are in many countries not legal, this situation has become challenged with genome editing [71–73].

  8. In the view of some authors, this was an overly careful approach (e.g. polemically ([78], p. 54)).

  9. No matter how ethically sensitive, responsible, open and engaged a scientific community wants to be, it may arguably be too much to expect activities that deeply question the field, decrease its funding opportunities or increase the risk of public contestation. Of course, there nevertheless remains much to be said in favour of benchside engagement and sensitivity to ethical and societal issues.

  10. www.syntheticaesthetics.org. Accessed 15 Sept 2015. See also the book that documents the project [91].

  11. www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2009/Pages/syntheticbiologysandpit.aspx. Accessed 30 Sept 2012.

  12. The Centre of Excellence in Biological Arts at the School of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.

  13. www.biofaction.com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.

  14. www.bio-fiction.com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.

  15. www.cisynbio.com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.

References

  1. Deplazes A (2009) Piecing together a puzzle. EMBO Rep 10:428–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014) Emerging policy issues in synthetic biology. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208421-en. Accessed 15 July 2015

  3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2015) Synthetic biology. Part I: potential impacts of synthetic biology on biological diversity. Part II: gaps and overlaps with the provisions of the convention and other agreements. CBD Technical Series No. 82, CBD, Montreal

  4. Engelhard M (2016) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin

  5. European Commission, The Scientific Committees on Health and Environmental Risks, Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, and Consumer Safety (2014) Opinion on synthetic biology I: definition. European Union, Luxembourg

  6. Breitling R, Takano E, Gardner TS (2015) Judging synthetic biology risks. Science 347:107. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1:3–20. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030—designing a policy agenda. OECD, Paris

  9. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2010) Nationale Forschungsstrategie BioÖkonomie 2030. Unser Weg zu einer bio-basierten Wirtschaft. BMBF Referat Bioökonomie, Berlin

  10. Jones R (2008) The economy of promises. Nat Nanotechnol 3:65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Audétat M, Barazzetti G, Dorthe G, Joseph C, Kaufmann A, Vinck D (2015) Sciences et technologies émergentes: pourquoi tant de promesses? Hermann Editions, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Between the possible and the actual: philosophical perspectives on the design of synthetic organisms. Futures 48:23–31. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.006. <hal-00939903>

  13. Müller M (2016) “First species whose parent is a computer”—synthetic biology as technoscience, colonizing futures, and the problem of the digital. In: Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 101–113

  14. UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK. Technology Strategy Board, Swindon

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stemerding D (2015) iGEM as laboratory in responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Innov 2:140–142. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1002171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biol Theory 8:368–375. doi:10.1007/s13752-013-0137-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marris C, Rose N (2012) Let’s get real on synthetic biology. New Scientist 2868. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684-800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology. Accessed 15 Sept 2015

  18. Campos L (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, Vriend H (eds) Synthetic biology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 5–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Acevedo-Rocha CG (2016) The synthetic nature of biology. In: Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (eds) Ambivalences of creating life. Societal and philosophical dimensions of synthetic biology. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 9–53

  20. Myskja B, Heggem R (2006) The human and social sciences in interdisciplinary biotechnology research: Trojan horses or useful idiots? In: Kaiser M, Lien M (eds) Ethics and the politics of food: preprints of the 6th Congress of the International Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Wageningen Academic Pub, pp 138–142

  21. Myskja B, Nydal R, Myhr A (2014) We have never been ELSI researchers—there is no need for a post-ELSI shift. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:9. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0009-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones RAL (2014) Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23:27–31. doi:10.1177/0963662513482614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guston DH (2014) Understanding “anticipatory governance”. Soc Stud Sci 44:218–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zwart H, Landeweerd L, van Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from “ELSA” to “RRI”. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:11. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. von Schomberg R (2010) Organising collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding nanotechnology: philosophy, policy and publics. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  26. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van den Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, et al. (2013) Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. European Commission/Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels

  28. Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 53–74

    Google Scholar 

  29. Randles S, Dorbeck-Jung B, Lindner R, Rip A (2014) Report of the roundtable at S.NET Boston 2013: “where to next for responsible innovation”? In: Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Innovation and responsibility: engaging with new and emerging technologies. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA, Berlin, pp 19–37

    Google Scholar 

  30. Glerup C, Horst M (2014) Mapping “social responsibility” in science. J Responsible Innov 1–30. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

  31. Stirling A (2008) Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk: converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Ann NY Acad Sci 1128:95–110. doi:10.1196/annals.1399.011

  32. Stirling A (2012) Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biol 10:e1001233. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Millstone E, Stirling A, Glover D (2015) Regulating genetic engineering: the limits and politics of knowledge. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2015:23–26

  34. Oudheusden M Van (2014) Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J Responsible Innov 1–25. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882097

  35. Horst M (2014) In focus: synthetic biology in society. Newsletter of the ERASynBio Newsletter 4th Edition, 2014, p. 4–5

  36. Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Engelhard M, Coles D, Weckert J, Lingner S (2014) Case studies—overview of ethical acceptability and sustainability (5.1). Deliverable 5.1. ProGReSS (PROmoting Global REsponsible research and Social and Scientific innovation). http://www.progressproject.eu/project-deliverables/. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  38. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2014) COP 12 Decision XII/24. New and emerging issues: synthetic biology. Draft decision submitted by the Chair of Working Group II. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13387. Accessed 15 July 2015

  39. Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) (2014) IAP Statement on realising global potential in synthetic biology: scientific opportunities and good governance. IAP Report. http://interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=23974. Accessed 15 May 2016

  40. Ter Meulen V (2014) Time to settle the synthetic controversy. Nature 509:135. doi:10.1038/509135a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Anonymous (2014) Nature editorial: tribal gathering. Nature 509:133. doi:10.1038/509133a

  42. Molyneux-Hodgson S, Meyer M (2009) Tales of emergence—synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 4:129–145. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Keasling JD et al (2014) Correspondence. Synthetic biology: a global approach. Nature 510:218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Evans SW et al (2014) Correspondence. Synthetic biology: missing the point. Nature 510:218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilsdon J, Doubleday R (2015) Directions for scientific advice in Europe. Centre for Science and Policy, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stilgoe J (2014) Don’t shut the door on the synthetic biology debate. The Guardian, Thursday 8 May 2014:8–9

  47. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Rep 10(Suppl 1):S18–S22. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mampuys R, Brom F (2015) Ethics of dissent: a plea for restraint in the scientific debate about the safety of GM crops. J Agr Environ Ethic 09/2015. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9564-9

  49. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-cerezo E (2011) New plant breeding techniques state-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. European Commission Joint Research Centre JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24760 EN. European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2791/60346

    Google Scholar 

  50. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council UK (BBSRC) (2014) New techniques for genetic crop improvement—position statement. BBSRC, Swindon. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/genetic-crop-improvement-position-statement-pdf/. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  51. Jones HD (2015) Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nature Plants 1:14011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Spranger T (2015) Legal analysis of the applicability of directive 2001/18/EC on genome editing technologies. Commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn. http://bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/agrogentechnik/Dokumente/Legal_analysis_of_genome_editing_technologies.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  53. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2015) Stellungnahme/Statement. Chancen und Grenzen des genome editing/The opportunities and limits of genome editing. Halle (Saale)

  54. European Commission (2015) Opinion on synthetic biology II: risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects. European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  55. Friends of the Earth U.S., International Center for Technology Assessment, ETC Group (2012) The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/principles-oversight-synthetic-biology. Accessed 15 July 2015

  56. Winter G (2015) The regulation of synthetic biology by EU law: current state and prospects. In: Giese B, Pade C, Wigger H, von Gleich A (eds) Synthetic biology. Character and impact. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 213–234

    Google Scholar 

  57. Winter G (2016) In search of a legal framework for synthetic biology. In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 171–211

  58. Bar-Yam S, Byers J-C, Casagrande R, et al. (2012) The regulation of synthetic biology. A guide to United States and European Union regulations, rules and guidelines. SynBERC and iGEM Version 9.1, http://www.synberc.org/sites/default/files/ConciseGuidetoSynbioRegulationOYEJan2012_0.pdf. Accessed Jan 2016

  59. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina (2009) Synthetische Biologie. Stellungnahme. Halle (Saale)

  60. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New Directions. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Washington, DC

  61. Dana GV, Kuiken T, Rejeski D, Snow AA (2012) Synthetic biology: four steps to avoid a synthetic-biology disaster. Nature 483:29–29. doi:10.1038/483029a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Drinkwater K, Kuiken T, Lightfood S, McNamara J, Oye K (2014) Creating a research agenda for the ecological implications of synthetic biology. MIT Center for International Studies, Cambridge, MA, and Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/6685/. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  63. Oye KA, Esvelt K, Appleton E, Catteruccia F, Chruch G, Kuiken T, Bar-Yam Lightfoot S, McNamara J, Smidler A, Collins JP (2014) Regulating gene drives. Science 345(6197):626–628. doi:10.1126/science.1254287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. European Commission (2015) Preliminary opinion on synthetic biology III: research priorities. European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  65. Service RF (2006) Synthetic biologists debate policing themselves. Science 312(5777):1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Torgersen H (2009) Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol 3:9–17. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9030-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bügl H, Danner JP, Molinari RJ, Mulligan JT, Park H-O, Reichert B, Roth DA, Wagner R, Budowle B, Scripp RM, Smith JAL, Steele SJ, Church G, Endy D (2007) DNA synthesis and biological security. Nat Biotechnol 25:627–629. doi:10.1038/nbt0607-627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Garfinkel MS, Endy D, Epstein GL, Robert M (2007) Synthetic genomics—options for governance. The J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, Maryland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/fileadmin/site/research/projects/synthetic-genomics-report/synthetic-genomics-report.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015

  69. Baltimore BD, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, CornJE DGQ, Doudna J, Fenner M, Greely HT, Jinek M, Puck J, Sternberg SH (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348:36–38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lanphier E, Urnov F (2015) Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519:410–411. doi:10.1038/519410a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Reich J, Fangerau H, Fehse B, Hampel J, Hucho F, Köchy K, Korte M, Müller-Röber B, Taupitz J, Walter J, Zenke M (2015) Genomchirurgie beim Menschen – zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie. Eine Analyse der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Gentechnologiebericht. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  73. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Association of Medical Research Charities, BBSRC, et al. (2015) Genome editing in human cells—initial joint statement. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059707.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  74. Vogel G (2015) Embryo engineering alarm. Science 347:1301. doi:10.1126/science.347.6228.1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL, McGee, Ethics of Genomics Group (1999) Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286:2087, 2089–2090

  76. Young E (2002) Venter gets go-ahead to build lifeform. New Scientist 21 November 2002. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3094-venter-gets-go-ahead-to-build-lifeform/. Accessed 15 July 2015

  77. Coenen C, Hennen L, Link H (2009) The ethics of synthetic biology. Contours of an emerging discourse. Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 18(2):82–87

    Google Scholar 

  78. Carmen IH (2004) Politics in the laboratory. The constitution of human genomics. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  79. Garfinkel MS, Endy D, Epstein GL, Friedman RM (2008) Synthetic biology. In: Crowley M (ed) From birth to death and bench to clinic: the hastings center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns. The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY, pp 163–167

    Google Scholar 

  80. J. Craig Venter Institute Fact Sheet: ethical and societal implications/policy discussions about synthetic genomics research at JCVI. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/fileadmin/site/research/projects/first-self-replicating-bact-cell/fact-sheet1.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2015

  81. ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. ETC Group, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  82. ETC Group (2010) The new biomassters. Synthetic biology and the next assault on biodiversity and livelihoods. ETC Group, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  83. Dabrock P (2009) Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Syst Synth Biol 3:47–54. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Van den Belt H (2009) Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life. NanoEthics 3:257–268. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0079-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ried J, Braun M, Dabrock P (2011) Unbehagen und kulturelles Gedächtnis. Beobachtungen zur gesellschaftlichen Deutungsunsicherheit gegenüber Synthetischer Biologie, Was ist Leben – im Zeitalter seiner technischen Machbarkeit? Beiträge zur Ethik der Synthetischen Biologie. Alber, Freiburg i. Br, pp 345–369

  86. Lentzos F, Cockerton C, Finlay S, Hamilton A, Zhang J, Rose N (2012) The societal impact of synthetic biology. In: Baldwin G et al (eds) Synthetic biology: a primer. Imperial College Press, London, pp 131–149

    Google Scholar 

  87. Balmer A, Bulpin K, Calvert J, Kearnes M, Mackenzie A, Marris C, Martin P, Molyneux-Hodgson S, Schyfter P (2012) Towards a manifesto for experimental collaborations between social and natural scientists. Accessible at:http://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com

  88. Marris C (2015) The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Science as Culture 24:83–98. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.986320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Rabinow P, Bennett G (2009) Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009. Syst Synth Biol 3:99–108. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9042-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  91. Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P, Elfick A, Endy D (2014) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  92. Hauser J, Schmidt M (2011) Gallery guide for the SYNTH-ETHIC exhibition in the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, May 14–June 28, 2011. Biofaction KG, Wien

  93. Schmidt M, Meyer A, Cserer A (2013) The Bio:Fiction film festival: sensing how a debate about synthetic biology might evolve. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662513503772

  94. Sauter A, Albrecht S, van Doren D, König H, Reiß T, Trojok R (2016) Synthetische Biologie – die nächste Stufe der Bio- und Gentechnologie. TAB-Arbeitsbericht 164. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  95. Karberg S (2012) Synthetische Biologie in der Kunst: Spiegel für die Forschung. genosphären – Zeitschrift des Österreichischen Genomforschungsprogramms GEN-AU

  96. Catts O, Zurr I (2012) Life as a raw material: illusions of control. Somatotechnics 2:250–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Meyer M (2015) Devices and trajectories of responsible innovation: problematising synthetic biology. J Responsible Innov 2:100–103. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1002056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Pauwels E (2013) Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience 63:79–89. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Pardo Avellaneda R, Hagen K (2016) Synthetic biology: public perceptions of an emergent field. In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 127–170

  100. Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Public Underst Sci 21:188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 2:545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Thomas J (2015) Constructing a “futurology from below”: a civil society contribution toward a research agenda. J Responsible Innov 2:92–95. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1002176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Kuiken T, Dana G, Oye K, Rejeski D (2014) Shaping ecological risk research for synthetic biology. J Environ Stud Sci 4:191–199. doi:10.1007/s13412-014-0171-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Vogt T (2010) Buying time—using nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies for a sustainable future. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding Nanotechnology. AKA-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 43–60

  105. Röspel DAR, Rossmann ED, Barthel K, et al. (2011) Kleine Anfrage: Stand und Perspektiven der Synthetischen Biologie. Deutscher Bundestag, 17. Wahlperiode. Drucksache 17/4898, 23.02.2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Wilhelmstraße 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Kristin Hagen

Authors
  1. Kristin Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Hagen.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This article was written with support from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, grant number 321400.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagen, K. Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts. Nanoethics 10, 201–213 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0267-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0267-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation