Special perspectives section: responsible research and innovation for synthetic biology

Abstract

In November 2014, a group of more than 100 scholars and practitioners from academia, industry, and non-profit organizations gathered in Tempe, AZ for an intensive two-day workshop to articulate the most important and pressing questions on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. The aim of the workshop was not just to reflect on the social science research that has been done around synthetic biology, but also to generate new questions to construct a new (set of) research agenda(s). A subset of the papers the participants wrote and circulated in advance of the workshop focused on the theme of responsible innovation; these authors agreed to revise their papers for this Special Perspectives Section. Together these articles communicate a diverse set of new ideas for work in responsible innovation.

Keywords:

• synthetic biology
• assessment
• responsible research and innovation
• future

Synthetic biology is often, but – importantly – not always, defined as the design (or re-design) of biological parts, devices, and systems, toward a useful purpose. The field is growing rapidly; the synthetic biology research market is currently worth $3 billion and, according to some reports, has the potential to grow to be worth over $38.7 billion by 2020.¹ The questions of novelty and the predicted products alone raise many complex questions.

On 4 November 2014, a group of more than 100 scholars and practitioners from academia, industry, and non-profit organizations gathered in Tempe, AZ for an intensive two-day workshop to articulate the most important and pressing questions on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. The aim of the workshop was not just to reflect on the social science research that has been done around synthetic biology, but also to generate new questions to construct a new (set of) research agenda(s). Sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the workshop was organized by David Guston (Arizona State University), Richard Murray (California Institute of Technology), and myself.

In order to focus our attention, we asked participants to submit a brief background paper describing a specific research project we (broadly conceived, the community of social science researchers interested in synthetic biology) ought to be doing; almost 60 participants submitted interesting and thought-provoking papers on a range of topics, including but not limited to ethics, economics, epistemology, anticipatory governance, integration, biosecurity, public opinion and values, and sustainability. A subset of the workshop papers focused on the theme of responsible innovation; these authors agreed to revise their papers for this Special Perspectives Section.

One emergent theme among all the workshop papers was a call for more comprehensive assessment frameworks. In this section, Withycombe Keeler & Foley focus on the need to better explore the ecological sustainability of synthetic biology, while both Vogel and Evans challenge techno-centric framings of biosecurity questions. Thomas urges us to resist solutionist narratives and proposes empirical fieldwork “from below” to better assess how citizens – and in particular, marginalized populations – understand and value emerging technologies. These claims complement Liu's argument on synthetic biology's potential impact on global health, which emphasizes the importance of attending to local contexts first.

Many of the Perspectives sought to challenge and unpack key claims or address long-standing problems with respect to the relationship among social science research, science, and policy. Meyer proposes empirical research questions to study the development and implementation of the term “responsible innovation” itself, and Li et al. offer a critical discourse analysis of responsible innovation. Kuzma identifies a problematic disconnect between ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) research and decision-making. Hurlbut draws our attention to the ways in which a solely reactive ELSI program has prevented us from querying visions of progress and the good that inform scientific research programs and governance practices. New fields like synthetic biology try to capture and define what counts as technological innovation and governance; strengthening mechanisms of democratic governance, he argues, will prevent certain imaginations from overpowering others.

There is some debate as to whether synthetic biology is new and unique or just a faster version of an old technology. Raman's article helpfully calls for critical interrogation of the concept of “novelty” in technological development, while Wolfe argues for more specificity in social science research on synthetic biology. There is, however, considerable agreement that, regardless of its novelty, synthetic biology is a potentially transformative technology that is part of a complex bioeconomy. As such, Miller argues our conventional risk assessment paradigms need to be redesigned to produce better cross-systems analyses. Bennett argues that synthetic biology has unique ontological features, and suggests, intriguingly, that we ought to look closely at the ways in which the research spaces themselves relate to the biotechnical capabilities.

Some of the Perspectives report on current work, but draw our attention to potential research needs. Simirenko et al. report on the Joint Genomic Institute's Synthetic Biology Internal Review process, which is an attempt to operationalize responsible innovation – their review process employs a broad set of criteria to evaluate research proposals. Kahl reports on surveys of users of open parts registries and argues social scientists need to better understand the actual practices of synthetic biology researchers in order to realize positive network effects. Stemerding delineates two different approaches to responsible research and innovation that are being developed in collaboration with the large-scale European SYNERGENE project and the US-based iGEM competition; the programs aim to increase learning and promote public discourse. Finally, Shapira et al. remind us that any large social science endeavor ought to be reflexive; their paper proposes metrics to assess social science research outcomes to document and strengthen research capabilities.

Together these articles communicate a diverse set of new ideas for work in responsible innovation, and remind us that there is much to be done.

Notes on contributor

Jenny Dyck Brian is an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett, the Honors College and affiliate faculty of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University (ASU). Her work explores the intersections of science policy, management, business ethics and bioethics. She holds a Ph.D. in Biology (Biology & Society) from ASU.

Notes

1. In May 2014, Allied Market Research released a report forecasting the global market for synthetic biology would reach $38.7 billion by 2020. The full report is available here: http://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/synthetic-biology-market.