384 18 Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0 to Responsible Research and Innovation
provide communication channels to build the responsible research in SB, which
we will review in Section 18.4.18.2.3 Opinions from Concerned Civil Society Groups
Attentions on SB are not limited within the academic community (social science,
science and technology studies, technology assessment, etc.) and regulatory
bodies. Concerned groups, especially environmental NGOs [45], for example,
the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC), have con-
ducted a couple of studies on SB and GE since 2006 [46–49]. In 2006, the ETC
Group and other NGOs published an open letter calling for a societal debate on
socioeconomic, security, health, environmental, and human rights implications
of SB [50]. In one of their reports, they argued that the advocators of SB intended
to “avoid public scrutiny by asserting that it is impossible to clearly distinguish
their work from earlier advances in recombinant DNA technology (genetic engi-
neering)” [47]. They recommended that public dialogue should be encouraged
and the potential risks should be made transparent. While promoting SB could
contribute to “the green economy,” they argued that “a full global public debate
on all of the socioeconomic, environmental and ethical issues related to biomass
use, synthetic biology, and the governance of new and emerging technologies in
general” was needed [51]. ETC together with other NGOs such as Friends of the
Earth U.S. and International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) pub-
lished the suggested principles for the oversight of SB. According to them, “full
public participation at every level” should be included in the oversight of SB, and
“full disclosure to the public of the nature of the synthetic organism” should be a
prerequisite for commercialization or environmental releasing of any SB product
(ETC et al. 2012). As recently as October 2012, ETC together with Friends of the
Earth managed to get their concerns heard at the COP 11 UN meeting on the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Hyderabad, India. With 193 nation
states represented, the representative of the Philippines asked for a moratorium
on SB (initially suggested by the NGOs), which was then rejected by the other
states. As a response to the critical views a final statement by all nations asking
for a cautious approach to SB followed. The opinions from the concerned groups
show the needs not only for public engagement but also for open access to the
technology. These issues are key to the framework of RRI, which will be reviewed
in Section 18.4.18.3 Frames and Comparators
As we have shown in Section 18.2, comparisons between SB and GE are widely
used when scientists communicate with their peers and with the public. Thus SB
can be seen as GE 2.0. There are, however, strong indications that SB – in science
and in the public debate – goes beyond a mere continuation of GE. Such debates
are subject to dominant frames, because otherwise it would not be possible to
discuss anything [52, 53]. For a development of a debate, it is necessary to develop
a common understanding of what is to be considered relevant and which form of