Synthetic Biology Parts, Devices and Applications

386 18 Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0 to Responsible Research and Innovation

public to be taken seriously; seen through the glasses of ‘technology as progress’,

the public appears as an entity to be mastered through appropriate means; and

with ‘technology as gadget’ the public is seen as a player in the technology’s own

team, so to say” [56].

18.3.1 Genetic Engineering: Technology as Conflict

GM crops or “green” biotechnology have been subject to adverse public percep-

tion in some countries. It is therefore not surprising that critical NGOs refer to

GE as a comparator for SB [47], painting a dark picture with SB being internal-

ized into the agenda of big business to exploit natural resources even more

aggressively. The ETC Group dubbed SB to be “extreme genetic engineering” and

underline the risks and inherent conflicts, such as intellectual property rights

(IPR), economic and power concentrations, environmental safety, and rural live-

lihoods. As a general rule, those environmental NGOs having addressed SB so

far tended to extrapolate arguments against various forms of biotechnology to

future applications of SB (ETC et al. 2012).

Policy refers to the GE comparator mostly in the form of a menace: “the same”

as with GM food (i.e., a failed implementation due to public rejection) must be

prevented. The IRGC report of 2010 (p. 37) described this reaction common

among experts and policy makers as “... the ‘fear of the fear of the public’  –  a

concern among those working on synthetic biology that the kind of public

response to GM crops that emerged in Europe in the late 1990s would be trans-

ferred, perhaps in a more virulent form, to synthetic biology.” The problem,

accordingly, lies in how to “... find ways of reconciling fundamentally conflicting

values or ideologies.” “... there are strong differences of opinion at the outset of a

debate, it is hard to manage the process in such a way as to avoid further polariza-

tion of views and exacerbation of conflict” – exactly as with GM food [59].

Communication strategies by many scientists and those from the industry are

to try to emphasize the difference to conventional biotechnology/GE. This may

be related to presenting a promising new field to funding agencies. On the other

hand, it has been pointed out that SB is an extension to GE transgressing past

approaches but proceeding on the same avenue toward artificialness. In their

Genetic engineering: technology as conflict

Synthetic

biology

Nanotechnology:

technology as progress

Information technology:

technology as gadget

Figure 18.2 The dominant comparator for SB could come from either of three preexisting

technology debates.