375Synthetic Biology: Parts, Devices and Applications, First Edition. Edited by Christina Smolke.
© 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Published 2018 by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
18
18.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes recent developments in the field of public perception
and public engagement and the attempt to apply the concept of “responsible
research and innovation” (RRI) to synthetic biology (SB). Albeit the term
synthetic biology – in its contemporary version – has been around for about a
decade, the field itself can be considered as a continuous development of genetic
engineering (GE), a research field established in 1970s [1], although the term
synthetic biology itself was coined already in 1910 by French scientist Stephane
Leduc. GE is defined as “the intentional manipulation of an organism’s genetic
material using tools that cut, move, and reattach (recombine) DNA segments
within and across different organisms” [1]. SB is developed based on the experi-
ence and knowledge of GE [2], yet tools and approaches of SB differ from those
of GE as SB attempts to build more sophisticated biological systems [3]. Thus, SB
can be seen as the second edition of GE, GE 2.0, as a “new way to organize and
construct the art of genetic engineering” that “enforces the traditional engineer-
ing concepts of modularity and standardization and adapts logical operator
structures from information processing” [4]. Since the early onset of this tech-
nology, the GE has faced a lot of skeptics from different stakeholders, including
the research community itself, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
regulatory bodies. In the early GE development, the public as well as scientists
shared similar concerns on how to conduct the research. Along with the growth
and development of GE, oversight efforts have been developed to address these
concerns at least since 1975 [5].
Although SB uses recombinant DNA techniques to engineer genetic circuits,
parts, devices, and the whole systems, it differs from GE. In GE, the principle
approach is more likely a “copy and paste” of the naturally existed traits from
“donor” to “recipient.” Yet as a GE 2.0 version, SB is enabling scientists and engi-
neers more freedom to “compose” contents based on design.
This would entail a deeper metabolic engineering [6], the definition of a mini-
mal genome [7–9], the construction of protocells [10, 11], and the creation of
Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0
to Responsible Research and Innovation
Lei Pei and Markus Schmidt
Biofaction KG, Technology Assessment, Kundmanngasse 39/12, Wien, 1030, Austria