Abstract
In 2014, an international group of scholars from various fields analysed the “societal dimensions” of synthetic biology in an interdisciplinary summer school. Here, we report and discuss the biologists’ observations on the general perception of synthetic biology by non-biologists who took part in this event. Most attendees mainly associated synthetic biology with contributions from the best-known public figures of the field, rarely mentioning other scientists. Media extrapolations of those contributions appeared to have created unrealistic expectations and irrelevant fears that were widely disconnected from the current research in synthetic biology. Another observation was that when debating developments in synthetic biology, semantics strongly mattered: depending on the terms used to present an application of synthetic biology, attendees reacted in radically different ways. For example, using the term “GMOs” (genetically modified organisms) rather than the term “genetic engineering” led to very different reactions. Stimulating debates also happened with participants having unanticipated points of view, for instance biocentrist ethicists who argued that engineered microbes should not be used for human purposes. Another communication challenge emerged from the connotations and inaccuracies surrounding the word “life”, which impaired constructive debates, thus leading to misconceptions about the abilities of scientists to engineer or even create living organisms. Finally, it appeared that synthetic biologists tend to overestimate the knowledge of non-biologists, further affecting communication. The motivation and ability of synthetic biologists to communicate their work outside their research field needs to be fostered, notably towards policymakers who need a more accurate and technical understanding of the field to make informed decisions. Interdisciplinary events gathering scholars working in and around synthetic biology are an effective tool in addressing those issues.
Notes
See, for instance, http://www.synbioproject.org/topics/synbio101/definition/, accessed on 25 April 2016.
See http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=1231, accessed on 25 April 2016.
See, for instance, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/innovators/2014/06/140602-george-church-innovation-biology-science-genetics-de-extinction/, accessed on 30 April 2015.
Representations are often focused on a specific category of synthetic biologists, such as bioengineers from the USA. See, for instance, http://syntheticbiology.org/, accessed on 30 April 2015.
The most commonly cited achievement of synbio came with tremendous effort—engineering yeasts to produce a direct precursor of artemisinin, an antimalarial drug [46, 47]—took roughly 150 person-years of work [22]. Similarly, engineering them to produce hydrocortisone [48], one of the most important anti-inflammatory molecules in the pharmaceutical industry, took more than 15 years.
See, for instance, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life’s_working_definition.html, accessed on 25 April 2016.
References
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 International, Cham et al., pp 9–53
Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (2016) Ambivalences of creating life. Societal and philosophical dimensions of synthetic biology. Springer International, Cham et al.
Oldham P, Hall S, Burton G (2012) Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS One 7:e34368
Church GM, Regis E (2014) Regenesis: how synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. Basic Books, New York
Jefferson C, Lentzos F, Marris C (2014) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: challenging the “myths”. Front Public Heal 2:115
Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2011) Leading US nano-scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J Nanoparticle Res 13:7041–7055
Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Dudo A (2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. J Mass Commun Q 86:299–314
Bromme R, Nückles M, Rambow R (1999) Adaptivity and anticipation in expert-laypeople communication. In: Brenannan SE, Giboin A, Traum D (eds) Psychological models of communication in collaborative systems. AAAI 1999 Fall Symposium Series. Menlo Park, p 17–24
Brossard D (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(S3):14096–14101
Scheufele DA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(S3):14040–14047
Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele D (2011) The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 88:55–75
van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. University of Twente, PhD thesis
Brown N (2003) Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Sci Stud 16:3–21
Brown N, Michael M (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 15:3–18
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. GPO, Washington
Forster AC, Church GM (2006) Towards synthesis of a minimal cell. Mol Syst Biol 2:45
Hutchison CA, Chuang R-Y, Noskov VN et al (2016) Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science 351:aad6253
Boldt J, Müller O (2008) Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nat Biotechnol 26:387–389
Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453
Shetty RP, Endy D, Knight TF (2008) Engineering BioBrick vectors from BioBrick parts. J Biol Eng 12:1–12
Porcar M, Danchin A, de Lorenzo V (2015) Confidence, tolerance, and allowance in biological engineering: the nuts and bolts of living things. Bioessays 37:95–102
Kwok R (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463:288–290
Gardner TS (2013) Synthetic biology: from hype to impact. Trends Biotechnol 31:123–125
Lentini R, Santero SP, Chizzolini F et al (2014) Integrating artificial with natural cells to translate chemical messages that direct E. coli behaviour. Nat Commun 5:4012
Borlaug NE (2000) Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiol 124:487–490
Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 2:545–548
Marchant R (2001) From the test tube to the table. EMBO Rep 2:354–357
Somerville C (2000) The genetically modified organism conflict. Plant Physiol 123:1201–1202
Marliere P (2009) The farther, the safer: a manifesto for securely navigating synthetic species away from the old living world. Syst Synth Biol 3:77–84
Skogstad G (2003) Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. J Eur Public Policy 10:321–338
Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z et al (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–154
Parens E, Johnston J, Moses J (2008) Ethics. Do we need “synthetic bioethics”? Science 321:1449
Lucassen E (1996) The ethics of genetic engineering. J Appl Philos 13:51–62
Verhoog H (1992) The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 5:147–160
Cockell CS (2004) The rights of microbes. Interdiscip Sci Rev 29:141–150
Editorial N (2007) Meanings of “life”: synthetic biology provides a welcome antidote to chronic vitalism. Nature 447:1031–1032
Perry RS, Kolb VM (2004) On the applicability of the principle of the quantity-to-quality transition to chemical evolution that led to life. Int J Astrobiol 3:45–53
Perry RS, Kolb VM (2003) The importance of chemicals from the transition zone to chemical evolution. In: Harris RA, Ouwehand L (eds) Proc. Proceedings of the third European workshop on exo-astrobiology. Mars: the search for life. ESA Publications Division, Noordwijk, pp 257–258
Quine WV (1969) Natural kinds. In: Rescher N (ed) Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 5–23
Cleland CE, Chyba CF (2002) Defining “life”. Orig Life Evol Biosph 32:387–393
Lazcano A (2008) Towards a definition of life: the impossible quest? Space Sci Rev 135:5–10
Oliver JD, Perry RS (2006) Definitely life but not definitively. Orig Life Evol Biosph 36:515–521
Luisi PL (1998) About various definitions of life. Orig Life Evol Biosph 28:613–622
Joyce GF (1994) Foreword. In: Deamer DW, Fleischaker GR (eds) Orig. life cent. Concepts. Jones & Bartlett, Boston, pp xi–xii
Aldrich S, Newcomb J, Carlson R (2008) Scenarios for the future of synthetic biology. Ind Biotechnol 4:39–49
Ro D-K, Paradise EM, Ouellet M et al (2006) Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature 440:940–943
Martin VJJ, Pitera DJ, Withers ST et al (2003) Engineering a mevalonate pathway in Escherichia coli for production of terpenoids. Nat Biotechnol 21:796–802
Szczebara FM, Chandelier C, Villeret C et al (2003) Total biosynthesis of hydrocortisone from a simple carbon source in yeast. Nat Biotechnol 21:143–114
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the organizers of the TASynBio Summer School: Kristin Hagen, Margret Engelhard and Georg Toepfer as well as its funding body, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. We thank our fellow attendees for their insightful comments and friendly conversations and for their patience when jargon from our different fields made communication laborious. Thanks are also due to Kristin Hagen and Stefanie Seitz for coordinating this special issue. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments led to significant improvements to the manuscript. CV had an appointment to the NASA Education Associates Program managed by the Universities Space Research Association at the time of writing. FC thanks the Armenise-Harvard Foundation, the Autonomous Province of Trento, and CIBIO for the support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Verseux, C., Acevedo-Rocha, C.G., Chizzolini, F. et al. Misconceptions of Synthetic Biology: Lessons from an Interdisciplinary Summer School. Nanoethics 10, 327–336 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0264-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0264-3