Constructing a ‘futurology from below’: a civil society contribution toward a research agenda

Abstract

While there is a well-rehearsed set of societal claims for synthetic biology originating from those creating the field (from above), there is a paucity of empirical studies that attempt to forecast the likely impact of developments ‘from below’. Taking inspiration from the movement for ‘history from below’, a call is made to develop a movement for ‘futurology from below’. Specific proposals for such an approach involve seeking out the knowledge of marginalized communities affected by economic disruption, building a critique of solutionist narratives, partnering with civil society and ensuring that scholars examining societal aspects of this field are not institutionally dependent on those developing synthetic biotechnology.

Keywords:

• synthetic biology
• futurology
• social history
• civil society
• solutionism

Just over 50 years ago, British social historian E. P. Thompson (1963) led a revolution in the study of history. He memorably termed it ‘history from below’. Addressing the social tumult that accompanied the first industrial revolution in England, he exhorted his academic colleagues to turn away from the standard history of great men and big events and to instead assess the lived impacts of social and economic forces on the lives of ordinary folk (craftworkers, agricultural laborers, etc.).

Today, the study of new technologies – particularly synthetic biology (syn bio) – could benefit from something very similar. A parallel ‘futurology from below’ – a people's assessment of new technologies – could be beneficial as we hurtle into the next industrial revolution. The standard story ‘from above’ of the technological and economic transformation around us is well rehearsed in popular science magazines and TED-style edutainment gatherings.¹ It foregrounds stunning technical abilities, great men (Craig Venter! and George Church!), heroic good intentions (biofuels!, anti-malarial drugs! and de-extinction!) and a dazzling new industry promising to deliver prosperity through progress. Embroidering that standard story is arguably the intellectually lazy option for public scholars.

Meanwhile, civil society and some social scientists have been trying to tell a different story ‘from below’ (see, e.g. ETC Group 2013a; Marris 2013). Instead of accepting the claims of a northern scientist synthesizing artemisinin, this approach asks to hear the voices of existing artemesia growers in East Africa. Instead of accepting the claims of biofuel companies, futurology from below would prefer the experience of Brazilian landless peasants. Since both publicly funded research and civil society properly take the public interest as their starting point, there should be (and indeed there is) fruitful collaboration between them.

Elements of such a collaboration could be:

Case studies, deliberative processes and fieldwork ‘from below’: The first commercial products of syn bio are no longer imaginary. They are already creating real-world social, cultural, political and economic changes along commodity supply chains. It is not enough to speculate or pronounce from afar about whether or not the introduction of syn bio vanillin will impact livelihoods of Madagascan vanilla farmers (ETC Group 2013b) or syn bio opiates impact regional security in south Asia (Steward 2012). Sustained studies are urgently needed, where researchers travel to affected communities, collaborate with in-country researchers, engage communities in conversation and critically analyze trends.

Challenging ‘solutionism’ and technofix thinking: Morozov (2013) defines solutionism as

An unhealthy preoccupation with sexy, monumental and narrow-minded solutions … to problems that are extremely complex, fluid and contentious … Solutionism presumes rather than investigates the problem it is trying to solve, reaching for the answer before the questions have been fully asked.

The field of syn bio is awash with solutionism – speculative technological fixes are casually cast as savior ‘solutions’ to public health, climate change and biodiversity collapse. Through the lens of simplistic technofixes, these complex issues are reduced to simple ‘puzzles to be solved’. Public research should seek to test both very particular claims – ‘will switching to algae oil really save forests?’ (ETC Group n.d.) – as well as finding ways to challenge and articulate the bigger problems with solutionism itself. As Bratton (2013) articulates, that means engaging complexity: ‘If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities and contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.’

Addressing the revolution, not the apps: While there is real value in digging into the claims and societal impacts associated with specific applications, there is also a danger that case by case technology assessments alone obscure the cumulative and platform-level impacts of syn bio as a whole, especially over medium- to long-term time scales. Larger changes in the economy, cultural and cognitive changes or new social and economic vulnerabilities may only be detectable when syn bio is considered as a platform. Even more importantly, the development of syn bio appears to be embedded in the emergence of a new flexible digital manufacturing platform which encompasses other mechanization tools such as robotics, 3D printing, ubiquitous sensors, big data and drones. It may be tremendously valuable for a number of groups to collaborate on a big piece of work that undertakes a wide ranging assessment of the claimed ‘new revolution in manufacturing’ (spanning from syn bio and big data to sensor networks, drones, 3D printing and flexible robotics). Such a study could assess how far developments live up to the hype as well as how these technologies synergistically transform supply chains, livelihoods, human rights, health and the environment. Civil society could contribute fully to such an assessment.

Getting out of ‘bed’: In the last few years, government funding arrangements for work to assess societal impact of new technologies may have fostered an unhealthy and unequal dependence between those developing a technology and those meant be critically assessing it. In genomics, ELSI (Ethical Legal and Societal Implications) studies were folded into a far larger funding package for applied work that was already committed to moving ahead the field. In the field of assessing nanotechnology, social scientists became ‘embedded’ in nanotechnology centers. While there are advantages, this nonetheless could have a tendency to cast social scientists and ethicists as potential public relations advisors. They may be expected to help shape syn bio's social acceptability in lieu of developing deeper platform-level critiques. The extent to which power relationships within such institutions muzzle social scientists is unclear, but at least one high profile breakdown of the relationship between an embedded social scientist/anthropologist and SynBERC should raise warning flags (see, e.g. Gollan 2011). Having synthetic biologists (some with commercial interests) as day-to-day colleagues may also informally serve to soften critiques. Sending researchers to assess syn bio while embedded in history, ecology, environmental management or developmental biology faculties could lead to far more interesting outcomes.

Partnering with social movements and civil society: Civil society groups have already had useful and constructive partnerships (both formal and informal) with social scientists, geographers, anthropologists, artists and ethicists tracking the field. ETC Group is part of two formal collaborations with academic partners concerned with societal impacts of syn bio: the SYNENERGENE project housed at Karlshrue Institute of Technology and funded by the European Commission,² and the Bioeconomies Media Project housed at The University of Victoria, British Columbia and funded by Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. In both cases, we play a formal role in assisting knowledge mobilization efforts as well as convening discussions between civil society, policy-makers and the public that inform assessment of the field. We have also had informal collaborations (such as developing a patent landscape study and mentoring doctoral and masters students as interns). Civil society groups and social movements are becoming increasingly organized and reflective on the topic of syn bio and also are repositories of knowledge and novel perspectives. We connect with some of the most impacted communities (e.g. vanilla communities, coconut growers and natural products developers) as well as international policy communities and are working with them to understand real-world impacts of syn bio ‘on the ground’ as well as in the sphere of governance.

Conclusion: bursting bubbles. As hype and private investment proliferates around the field of syn bio, there is also unease that an untenable speculative bubble may be being inflated – or that syn bio as a field may amount to a ponzi-like bubble-making enterprise (see, e.g. Bernstein 2014; Thomas 2014). Already early claims of ‘sustainable biofuels’, ‘de-extinction’ or ‘creating life’ are ringing hollow but in their place seemingly endless new speculative promises continue to issue forth from syn bio labs, boardrooms and government funding agencies. Cutting those claims down to size and forestalling painful collapses requires retraining scholarly eyes not on the dazzling wonders claimed for the technology, but the sharp edges and empirical reality of the world into which its being introduced. Amidst ever more synthetic imaginaries, a futurology from below, developed hand in hand with impacted communities and social actors, may just generate the knowledge necessary for a welcome outbreak of realism.

Notes on contributor

Jim Thomas is the Programme Director of the ETC Group, a co-founder of the SynBioWatch Collaborative and of the Civil Society Working Group on Synthetic Biology.

Notes

1. TED stands for ‘Technology, Entertainment and Design’ (www.ted.com).

2. See http://www.synenergene.eu/