It's a bold but frankly risky opening shot for Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray to commence their report by claiming that a “majority opinion” or a “near‐con­sensus” has now been reached on the matter of synthetic biology. Risky because “majority opinions,” even in well‐established controversies, are highly unstable (events will have many surprises in store) but also risky because... well... the majority of whom, exactly? North American bioethicists? Invitees to Washington roundtable discus­sions? Or some sort of broader meaningful public major­ity? According (...) to the authors, the particular unspecified majority they have in mind agrees that a social contract of sorts has already been hammered out in which “society should allow the technology to proceed and even provide it some financial support.”Has the burgeoning debate over synthetic biology re­ally already come to a gentleman's agreement brokered roughly along terms described by the U.S. President's Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in its re­port of 2011? I don't think so. (shrink)