376 18 Synthetic Biology: From Genetic Engineering 2.0 to Responsible Research and Innovation
noncanonical biochemistries [12–17]. SB is an interdisciplinary research field,
involving scientists across both science and engineering [4], while GE is known
to be a discipline of life science. Another difference between SB and GE is the
consideration of societal concerns at a very early stage of development. Generally
speaking, the fact that the world today, with the Internet and social media, civil
society groups with diverse needs and concerns, means that we encounter a very
different Zeitgeist today than in the 1970s. But what does this mean for SB? Will
SB be just another reenactment of the GE debate from the 1980s and 1990s, or
will the debate be carried out in a totally different way?
In this chapter, the public perception on SB and the societal ramifications of its
applications will be reviewed. We will analyze how public perceptions toward SB
have developed over the years. Then we will look at the contingencies that frame
the debate about the technology with a special emphasis on the comparative sci-
ence and engineering fields. Last but not least, in order to address some of the
concerns raised within the open dialogues on SB, the idea to carry out RRI in SB
will be introduced.18.2 Public Perception of the Nascent Field
of Synthetic Biology
According to many scientists and funding agencies, SB is believed to hold great
potential for applications in multiple economic areas and thus may have signifi-
cant ramifications for society.
Learning from the history of GE, especially with regard to genetically modified
(GM) crops in Europe, the opinions of the prospective end users and end
consumers cannot be ignored in SB. Even the most techno-optimistic engineer
realizes that he is not working in a societal vacuum but is part of a societal fabric
that relates not only to public funding decisions but also to the way the research
is done in the lab. Compared to GM crops or the human genome project, where
the technology was developed first and then the implications for society, which
were discussed rather “downstream,” SB demonstrates a new paradigm where
societal issues are placed more “upstream.” The idea is that strong concerns and
objections would appear on the radar screen early on and “appropriate” meas-
ures could be taken to deal with it, instead of fully developing a technology in
total ignorance of its societal reaction, having to risk the burial of a whole suite
of technologies and wasting millions of taxpayers R&D money (as in the case of
GM crops in Europe). What appropriate means in this context is another impor-
tant aspect, which will be discussed under Section 18.4.
One way to find out what “the public thinks” about SB (or any other new and
emerging technology) is by conducting public perception surveys. This could
be phone call or face-to-face interviews or written questionnaires (sometimes
complemented by focus groups, where about a dozen people have a moderated
discussion). The advantage of this approach is the relative ease with which to get
some first data. The downside, however, is that the results can only be regarded
as a rough momentous observation and a deeper understanding of the rationale
behind those perceptions is not always possible.