18.2 Public Perception of the ascent Field of Synthetic Biology 38318.2.2.5 United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, public perceptions on SB were studied by the Royal
Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) with input from the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in 2009. The report from RAE was based on
a dialogue activity with 16 members of the public and a nationwide representa-
tive survey of 1000 adults aged 18 and over [42]. The perceptions of laypeople
about the scientific research, awareness, and understandings of SB were investi-
gated. The report showed that in the United Kingdom the awareness of SB was
low. This is similar to the findings in the United States and the rest of
Europe – nearly two thirds had never heard of SB, and for the one third who
heard of SB, only 10% among this one third heard a lot (or which is 3% of the all
answers of the survey), 57% a little (or 19% in total), and 33% only the term (or
10% in total). The words linked to SB were “artificial,” “unnatural,” and “man-
made.” While studying the public attitudes toward creating, modifying life, and
totally man-made organisms, the majority of the respondents were positive
about creating microorganisms to produce medicines and biofuels, which were
also found in the Eurobarometer. Regarding issues around SB, the survey showed
that there were biosafety concerns on SB applications involving environmental
release, while there was comparatively little concern about the biosecurity issues
SB might bring with.
The BBSRC and EPSRC published a report outlining the most important find-
ings around the Synthetic Biology Public Dialogue [43]. This dialogue was con-
ducted by TNS-BMRB with 41 stakeholder interviews, involved 160 members of
the public and specialists on science and governance. In the United Kingdom it
is highly expected that SB could address some challenges for the whole society.
Yet how to foster such a science should take into account the social context. The
dialogue was conducted among the interested groups from the public, people
from the research community and other stakeholders, to explore the public
expectations, concerns, and aspirations around SB. The major findings from this
dialogue were as follows: people were both excited and scared by the potential of
SB; they were concerned about adequate regulations and preferred international
regulations on SB, particularly for those applications that (might) affect the envi-
ronment; and the public was concerned about the motivation of scientists who
were asked to consider the wider impacts of their work. The UK dialogue revealed
the important role of the public debate on SB and showed its impacts in dissemi-
nation, awareness of the issues raised in the dialogue, and the needs for public
engagement.
The UK dialogue also showed the different views on SB from different stake-
holders. For example, the researchers from the academic field tended to “rebrand”
their research with SB to attract funding, while the researchers from the industry
tended to avoid the SB label due to the negative perception of “synthetic” among
the lay public. The social scientists, NGOs, and the consumer groups viewed that
the development of SB was driven by the interest from the large corporations
[44]. However, these different views did not hinder all the stakeholders to agree
on the value of public engagement. A dialogue engaging all the stakeholders will