The Monster and the polar bears: constructing the future knowledge landscape of synthetic biology to inform responsible innovation

Abstract

Responsible innovation in synthetic biology requires a research agenda to analyze and assess functional applications and their plausible future impacts on social–ecological systems alongside the many other ‘solutions’ (e.g. technologies, policies, social and behavioural interventions, changes to infrastructure) available to achieve shared goals for a sustainable society. Constructing the future knowledge landscape of synthetic biology could inform anticipation to explore how synthetic biology may redefine human–environment interactions and shape visions, expectations, and fears about the future.

Keywords:

• anticipation
• sustainability
• synthetic biology
• Frankenstein
• visions
• future

Nearly two centuries ago, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Shelley 1999) envisioned with prescience the future of health innovation and biotechnology. The tale of Victor, an ambitious doctor who used his expertise to generate sentient life, helped inspire the field of bioethics to attend to issues such as the philosophical and moral standing of humans, machines, and their novel interactions. However, Frankenstein’s dilemma extends beyond the anthropocentric trope of scientists playing God; technologies intervene in complex systems in ways that fall outside the scope of normal scientific inquiry and with impacts that cannot be predicted. In the final scene, as the Monster traipses through arctic tundra, readers easily empathize with his very human sadness and isolation. Yet one could also ponder the potential impact of the introduction of a non-native species to the artic ecosystem. While it might be a cognitive and emotional challenge, considering the Monster's impact on the local fauna, like the charismatic polar bears, or human communities is non-trivial. Innovations in biotechnology, genetic engineering, and synthetic biology applications may have considerable implications for the sustainability of broader socio-ecological systems, should they function and be disseminated as promised or feared. As the bicentennial of Frankenstein approaches, attention should also be paid to how synthetic biology may redefine human–environment interactions and shape visions, expectations, and fears about the future.

Synthetic biology, as Guston (2013, 109) suggests, ‘sees biology in distinctly engineering terms', and advances in this diverse field are drawing attention back to health innovation and challenging previously accepted moral and ethical boundaries. Responsible innovation in synthetic biology requires a research agenda to analyze and assess functional applications and their plausible future impacts on social–ecological systems alongside the many other ‘solutions’ (e.g. technologies, policies, social and behavioural interventions, changes to infrastructure) available to achieve shared goals for a sustainable society. From this perspective, the promise of synthetic biology in medicine is fairly narrow, constrained to Western notions of ideal physical health for the individual. However, beyond a certain threshold of basic personal health, this ideal does not scale up to communities or society, nor does it transfer to ecosystem health. In establishing a research agenda for the societal aspects of synthetic biology, it is critical to embed ethical inquiry in a systems perspective that attends to the potential contributions and risks for individuals, society, and the environment. The discourse needs to move beyond governing each technological innovation separately to one of finding evidence-based solutions for pressing sustainability challenges in which synthetic biology applications may be among many high- and low-tech options (Wiek et al. 2012).

Considering the future contribution of synthetic biology requires constructing, synthesizing, and assessing future knowledge through anticipation. To anticipate is not to predict but rather to seek out pieces of the future that inform how one acts today (Guston 2013). Anticipation around synthetic biology could create knowledge regarding: (i) what are plausible future applications for synthetic biology; (ii) how might such applications impact the systems into which they are disseminated; and (iii) how could they interact with other ongoing and plausible future social, political, economic, and technological changes. Such knowledge about the future is constantly being socially constructed by a wide diversity of special interests. For emerging technologies, the most prominent interests are often those of scientists, corporations, product marketers, and issue advocates. This breadth of perspectives comes from individuals and organizations with distinctly different understandings of reality and means and methods to acquire and formulate knowledge (resulting in distinct but overlapping ontological, epistemological, and methodological characteristics). When brought together, these perspectives on the future constitute a multi-dimensional and pluralistic future knowledge landscape, which is continuously reformulated and can be enacted to inform present-day actions and planning efforts (Withycombe 2010; Withycombe Keeler 2014). So while it is not possible to know exactly what the future holds, one might look at a diverse and broad future knowledge landscape, reflect on priorities and alternatives, and make strategic decisions – about what synthetic biology research to fund, what policies to enact, or whether to invest in a different approach to achieving sustainability goals, for example.

Scenario construction and visioning are two suites of scientific methods commonly used to construct future knowledge, and their application requires minimal engagement with other futures research or existing future knowledge (Withycombe Keeler et al. forthcoming). However, a fuller picture of the future knowledge landscape is needed for responsible innovation in synthetic biology, where the very building blocks of life are altered or reassembled. A number of anticipatory activities have been undertaken to examine the future of human health, health systems, health technology, and even synthetic biology, specifically. By investigating anticipation around these themes, a rudimentary future knowledge landscape of synthetic biology can take shape. At this time, the boundaries and expansiveness of the future knowledge landscape approach are not known. The goal is to cast a wide net in order to capture as many anticipatory activities related to synthetic biology as possible and map their results together so that this breadth of future knowledge can be comprehensively analyzed and assessed.

Mapping the future knowledge landscape for synthetic biology can serve as the basis for answering several important questions, including: who is shaping which pieces of synthetic biology's future; what are the values imbued in those futures; and what large-scale socio-ecological–technical transformations may arise from those futures? These questions do not include formal ethical inquiry or risk analysis, nor do they intend to quantify potential environmental threats from synthetic biology, as with an environmental impact assessment. However, the proposed approach could bring together the results of such activities and allow for analysis, comparison and assessment across themes, time horizons and spatial scales. The limits of the future knowledge landscape are as of yet unknown. However, sustainability can be used as a framework to analyze what is emphasized in the future knowledge landscape and what is marginalized or absent. The future knowledge landscape can also be assessed against normative sustainability criteria including livelihood opportunity, human flourishing, and socio-ecological integrity across intra- and inter-generational scales and evaluated alongside other existing or proposed solutions to sustainability problems. Such analysis and assessment are critical for developing anticipatory capacities among scientists, policy makers, and the broader public. While constructing the future knowledge landscape does not engage directly with this capacity building, such engagement would be important for illuminating value conflicts and different perspectives on desirable and sustainable futures, and fostering a more nuanced discussion about the role and cost (political, social, and financial) of technologies leveraged to achieve societal outcomes.

At first glance, public rhetoric as well as scientific discourses on the future of synthetic biology, much like other emerging technologies, appear to coalesce around extreme promises and perils for humans. Bioethical inquiry and techno-ethical scenarios comprise a significant portion of the scientific dialogue on the future implications of health innovation, while socio-technical systems including physical infrastructures, demographics, as well as the politics and power therein are infrequently referenced. So while bioethical work continues to attend to the individual (e.g. patient rights) and professional societies (e.g. doctors), few are exploring the complex socio-technical systems that comprise health innovation, let alone the interactions with ecological systems, where potentially significant implications for sustainability may reside. These are initial conclusions; important research to be undertaken on societal aspects of synthetic biology will include a full literature review and document analysis that include grey literature focusing on the future of synthetic biology, biotechnology, and health innovation broadly. However, our opening reviews of the literature demonstrate the absence of broader social–ecological considerations, and current bibliometric analysis on the future of synthetic biology concludes that the discourse predominately reflects historical approaches to bioethics (Youtie and Shapira 2014). These initial evidences all lead to the conclusion that the future knowledge landscape is not fully developed enough to inform responsible innovation, and that tunnel vision constrains our understanding of the range of plausible futures for synthetic biology. To move from this tunnel vision to a broader funnel vision requires additional future knowledge construction with an eye towards anticipation rather than exploration.

Future scenarios of synthetic biology should be constructed, paying particular attention to unexplored areas of the future knowledge landscape, including the impact of synthetic biology on the broader public, marginalized groups, future generations, and the natural environment. It is also important to consider other potentially transformational technologies and social movements, which can interact with and influence how synthetic biology is used and with what impact. Returning to Frankenstein once again, a research agenda for the responsible innovation of synthetic biology needs to consider the Monster and the polar bears. The proposed research agenda will map out and explore the future knowledge landscape of synthetic biology to create a more comprehensive exploration of opportunities and challenges that can shape policy. The ultimate goal is to direct the conversation towards solutions for urgent sustainability problems in which synthetic biology applications are among many promising solutions.

Notes on contributors

Lauren Withycombe Keeler is a postdoctoral scientist in the Faculty of Sustainability at Leuphana University Lüneburg. She is co-coordinator of the Initiative 2042, a longitudinal study to monitor and inform sustainability transformation in city-regions around the world. Her research applies methods of anticipation and future studies to inform sustainability transitions and transformations in water, health, and urban systems.

Rider W. Foley is an assistant professor in the Science, Technology and Society program in the Engineering and Society Department at the University of Virginia. He co-leads the ‘Nano and the City’ thematic research cluster for the Center for Nanotechnology in Society. His research interests attend to the intersection of society and the complex problems left demanding solutions.