Social license and synthetic biology: the trouble with mining terms

ABSTRACT

In the wake of controversies over first-generation biotechnologies, the growing field of synthetic biology appears cognizant of the need to attend to the social, political, cultural, and ethical dimensions of innovation. Public engagement has emerged as an important means for attending to these dimensions. Here, we call attention to the problematic nature of one paradigm being drawn upon to conceptualize this public engagement for synthetic biology: social license to operate (SLO). After reviewing SLO’s emergence in the resource extraction context and the existing critiques of SLO, we examine its current use in the synthetic biology literature. We argue that an SLO-derived model of engagement is especially inadequate for synthetic biology due to unique challenges posed by synthetic biology and the limited conception of engagement provided by SLO. We conclude by discussing alternative public engagement paradigms and examples better suited to inform synthetic biology governance.

KEYWORDS:

• Community and stakeholder engagement
• public engagement
• responsible research and innovation
• social license to operate
• synthetic biology

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jessica Smith who provided very helpful comments on an early draft of this manuscript, as well as anonymous peer reviewers and editors for their suggestions. Jeantine Lunshof was a member of a team funded in the Fall 2016 cycle of the Greenwall Foundation's Making a Difference program for “A Mutually Responsive Approach to Developing Technologies That Alter Shared Ecosystems” (Kevin Esvelt, PI). Jason Delborne and Adam Kokotovich received funding through a cooperative agreement with the Piedmont South Atlantic Coast Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, “Synthesizing Engagement for Synthetic Biology: Ethical and Social Considerations Surrounding the Environmental Impact of Synthetic Biology” (W912HZ-17-2-0018), 2017–2018.

Disclosure statement

Jason Delborne has been affiliated with the Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents (GBIRd) international partnership since 2016.

Notes on contributors

Jason A. Delborne joined North Carolina State University in August 2013 as part of the Chancellor’s Faculty Excellence Program in Genetic Engineering and Society. His research focuses on challenges and potentials in public and stakeholder engagement surrounding emerging biotechnologies, including gene drive mice for conservation and the genetically engineered American chestnut tree. He served on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee that authored, Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values (2016).

Adam E. Kokotovich is a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at North Carolina State University. An interdisciplinary social scientist, he is particularly interested in highlighting and opening to reflexive scrutiny the consequential value judgments and assumptions that influence decision-making related to science, risk, and the environment. His research has focused on the governance of invasive species, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology.

Jeantine E. Lunshof is philosopher and ethicist at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard, and Lecturer on behalf of the Harvard Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School. She is Assistant Professor in the Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen. Since 2006, Jeantine is ethics consultant to the Church lab at Harvard Medical School, Department of Genetics. Her research focuses upon conceptual and normative questions in synthetic biology, for which she is developing a model of Collaborative Ethics.