Abstract
Because the organisms, production, potential uses, and disposal practices associated with synthetic biology vary widely, so do the impacts and implications. This paper advocates that scholars crafting a research agenda and investigating societal aspects of synthetic biology do so in a way that is attentive to important specifics, such as the types of organisms involved and contexts in which synthetic organisms or biological systems will be used. Such specificity will strengthen analyses and enhance the credibility, utility, and, therefore, the impact of findings and recommendations.
This paperFootnote1 constitutes an entreaty to scholars investigating societal aspects of synthetic biology: approach synthetic biology specifically, not generically.
Synthetic biology is defined in numerous ways. It can be conducted through diverse processes on divergent types of organisms. It also can be ‘used’ or ‘applied’ in potentially unlimited venues to accomplish any of a number of objectives. These sorts of statements should become more than familiar, nearly obligatory introductions to studies of societal aspects of synthetic biology that subsequently fail either to account for or to address the extraordinary variability encompassed by the phrase “synthetic biology”. Instead, synthetic biology-related specificity should be used to sharpen inquiries and add analytical depth. Doing so potentially can impart new levels of credibility or power to resulting findings and recommendations.
I am among a set of authors who made a similar point about nanoscale science (Shumpert et al. Citation2014), arguing that “ELSI [ethical, legal, and social issues] scholars should add technical- and application-related forms of specificity to their work and their writings to enhance effectiveness and impact in communicating with one important target audience – members of the nanoscale science community” (193). Our emphasis was on engagement with scientists, not governance per se, but our inquiries raise questions about the kinds and “appropriateness” of policies for different actors, phases (research through deployment through disposal and decommissioning), materials, processes, and applications. The scientists we interviewed were conducting fundamental research that was both particular and general – akin to much fundamental synthetic biology research. It was particular in that it was undertaken to uncover principles and materials- or process-related possibilities, and general insofar as, ultimately, research findings could be applied in numerous ways and contexts. These fundamental researchers typically did not integrate “societal considerations” in their daily work and thought that those considerations would come into play in more downstream application- or commercialization-oriented activities. In our article, we asked our fellow ELSI scholars, “what is it, exactly, that we … want nano-scientists, -managers, or -funders to do as a result of our scholarship?” (199). An ancillary question is how, exactly, do we want others to use our findings and insights in the realm of governance?
Extending this reasoning to synthetic biology, what goals do those of us who are endeavoring to articulate social science research directions have for the outputs of any research agenda we may propose? Those goals may change over time but they provide an explicit framework upon which to build a research agenda. That framework also provides a way of gauging the extent to which agenda items individually and collectively align with research goals.
My proclivity is to establish goals that involve the use, and not just the production, of research findings. This use- and goal-oriented proclivity undoubtedly influences the emphasis I place on specificity, as does our research team's relatively recent focus on “members of the [salient] scientific community”Footnote2 as one target “user” population. Regardless, I believe that specificity can:
enhance research on an array of societal aspects of synthetic biology, including upstream or public engagement, responsible innovation, public attitudes and opinions, communications, bioethics, governance, costs versus benefits, and risk;
improve our collective ability to achieve multiple research goals; and
increase the “usability” of our research results among multiple target user populations.
Even just two specific synthetic biology attributes – organism and application – have substantive, potentially significant, implications for social science research. These attributes influence the settings, processes, and practices associated with R&D, production, and deployment; invoke different sets of regulations; generate different economic or other cost–benefit parameters and ratios; produce different human health and environmental risks, with varying magnitudes and duration; and may lend themselves to markedly different potential misuses (dual use). We should craft a research agenda on societal aspects of synthetic biology that is attentive to specificity.
Notes on contributor
Amy K. Wolfe, a Distinguished Research and Development Staff member, has worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), in Tennessee, for over 25 years. She serves as the Society-Technology Interactions Science Team Leader and Interim Renewable Energy Systems Group Leader in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division. Her work emphasizes social, institutional, and behavioral aspects of a wide array of society-technology interactions.
Notes
1. This material is based upon the work supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research. However, the opinions expressed are my own. Thanks to Savannah C. Stelling for her assistance and comments in preparing this paper.
2. In particular, the research team I lead at Oak Ridge National Laboratory has focused on scientists, science managers, and science funders who shape choices about what research to conduct and what to do with the results of that research.