Synthetic biology gets ethical

Synthetic-biology is an emerging science that has the potential to bring forth public wrath in a fashion similar to GM crops or the links being made between nanotechnology and asbestos – see previous blog post on this.

Synthetic biology is essentially designing and building useful stuff from biological components, for example for biofuels or pharmaceuticals. This link is an example of how secondary students are getting involved in syn-bio research at Uni Melb’s Bio21 Institute

A research centre dedicated to syn-bio opening this week at Imperial College London wants to pre-empt public concerns by bringing in the social scientists at the start – a rare thing in any scientific endeavour or project. Normally the public engagement/communication is an afterthought: brought in when it all goes wrong or when its time to generate some nice PR fluff, though that is possibly being a bit harsh and I may be a touch cynical.

The Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation is the first publicly-funded UK centre dedicated to synthetic biology. Nature has a good report on it with links to more details about the science.

In regard to the public engagement and related social science Andrew Maynard said it well in one of the comments in the Nature story:

“This a serious attempt to place social issues and public outreach at the centre of synthetic biology research…It builds on a growing awareness that new technologies depend on more than just good science – social and policy concerns can break potentially beneficial advances if not addressed seriously from the start.”

I would agree, but we have yet to see what sort of public engagement is planned for this centre and whether that will ultimately have any influence on the direction of the research or related public policy, if indeed this is their aim.  My question for Australian readers is how many of you would actually actively participate in any engagement process in this area of research?  What level of engagement would you want, for example guided tours of the facilities, attendance at forums discussing the research, or its potential social implications and which direction it should take…? What would you expect from such engagement re: outcomes?

As someone trying to actively engage the public in emerging technologies the question is always, how do I do it (why am I doing it), what does the public expect and how does this translate to actually getting the public to engage? Do they even want to engage?

Jason Major

Manager, GNTIS