public views on synthetic biology

7/27/2019 Public Views on Synthetic Biology

1/18


2/18

This report is a review of currently available information on the views and values of the public onsynthetic biology. It provides a snapshot of public views and is a live document which will be updatedon a regular basis as new evidence of public views emerges.

The report will be useful to those interested in the publics views on new and emerging areas of

science and technology and is particularly targeted to assist those involved in policy involving scienceand technology as they provide a background to what is already known about public views.

The views and values of the public will change and new information will become available. Hence, wewelcome your views, insights or comments.

Do you know of further evidence which we should include? Do you have any comments or suggestions to improve the report?

You can commenthere.

This report, and the others in the series, has been produced by Sciencewise. Sciencewise is a BISfunded programme to encourage the more widespread use of public dialogue in policy involvingscience and technology. Sciencewise provides advice and guidance to help those involved in thedevelopment of policy to understand and to take into account the views and values of the public in the

development of policy involving science and technology. Sciencewise is able to provide:

Advice and guidance on public dialogue and engagement.

Assistance with the implementation of engagement as appropriate

Financial support for the implementation of selected public dialogue projects

Training and mentoring to assist those involved in policy development to build theirunderstanding of the benefits and their confidence around engagement with the public.
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/public-views-on-synthetic-biology/http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/public-views-on-synthetic-biology/http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/public-views-on-synthetic-biology/http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/public-views-on-synthetic-biology/


3/18

Public views on synthetic biology

i

Table of contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 11 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 22 Public views ................................................................................................................ 33 Analysis of views ....................................................................................................... 6

3.1 The overall message: uncertainty ...................................................................................... 63.2 Commonly held views ........................................................................................................ 73.3 Areas of uncertainty or diversity of views .......................................................................... 83.4 Possible influencing factors ............................................................................................... 8

4 Trends ......................................................................................................................... 95 Gap analysis ............................................................................................................... 95.1 The public and synthetic biology, March 2013 .................................................................. 96 References .................................................................................................................11Appendix I Summary of public engagement activities related to synthetic biologysince 2008 ...........................................................................................................................12


4/18


1

Executive summary

This report summarises public views on the topic of synthetic biology across the past five years. It

provides an analysis of key outcomes and trends; it also gives an overview of possible gaps in ourcurrent knowledge about what the public think of synthetic biology and why.

Bringing together biologists and engineers, the emerging field of synthetic biology involves new andexciting technology. Synthetic biology involves the design and construction of new biological devicesand systems for useful purposes, with potential applications spanning from improved drug deliverytreatments to advances in the production of biofuels. This potentially revolutionary technology alsointroduces a number of major possible social, ethical and environmental risks and challenges,including bioterrorism, commercial monopolies, and the philosophical and religious concernsassociated with creating artificial life.

Though there has recently been a rapid rise in research activity, the field of synthetic biology is still inits infancy and there is currently low public awareness of the sector and its implications andapplications.

Focusing predominantly on the UK public dialogues which have been undertaken (incorporating datafrom UK and EU polling, and insights from stakeholder input, academic research and media reporting),an overarching theme of public uncertainty emerges. Commonly held views include:

extremes; it is both exciting and scary

the need for regulation and control which could keep up with developments in the sector

synthetic biology could lead to the transgression of nature

optimism is high: the technology presents solutions to some of the worlds major challenges

the motivation of scientists in this sector has been questioned

synthetic biology could produce big winners, and big losers

given the sense that the public consider themselves powerless to influence the sciences more

generally, scientists have a responsibility to consider the wider implications of their work

Interest in the field of synthetic biology is progressing at a rapid rate, and will continue to do so. Publicdialogues, as well as stakeholder discussions and the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap recognise thata key challenge will be one of regulation and how it keeps abreast of the developing technology. Sucha challenge also applies to gathering, monitoring and responding to public views.

Based upon the few dialogue and social research activities that have occurred we can confidentlyassert that at this stage the public are not generally aware of the technology and so have not formedstrong views on its risks and benefits. However, the Royal Academy of Engineering and Biotechnology& Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) dialogues both demonstrated that members of thepublic, given time and information, do have the ability to add value to policy discussions. Another keytheme arising from the activities undertaken so far has been one of trust; in terms of scientistsactivities, stakeholders motives and the Governments ability to regulate this emerging sector. Thishas been recognised as important from within the synthetic biology community.

The fast moving nature of the technology and its disruptive potential mean that attention should bepaid to whether developments in the technology suggest an appropriate timescale for furtherpublic involvement in order that policy can take into account public views. There might also be roomfor ongoing engagement of some kind in order to identify emerging trends in public views and attitudestowards synthetic biology over a number of years.

Gauging public reaction to potential emerging applications of synthetic biology and involvingmembers of the public in early discussions about these applications could be an opportunity to buildon the five key questions emerging from the BBSRC/Engineering and Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil dialogue by examining them in a more practical context. Understanding the differences inpublic opinion in relation to media coverage and consumption as synthetic biology develops may be

an area for further consideration.


5/18


2

1 IntroductionBringing together biologists and engineers, the emerging field of synthetic biology involves new andexciting technology. The principles of technological manipulation of biology have been advocatedsince the beginning of the 20th Century. However, the widespread use of the term synthetic biology

has only occurred since early 2000 as our understanding of complex biological systems and the fallingcost of underpinning technologies such as gene sequencing and synthesis have allowed a paradigmshift our ability to engineer biology.

As an emerging field, many definitions have been proposed, but the UK Research Councils and theTechnology Strategy Board (TSB) use the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) definition whichstates that: Synthetic biology aims to design and engineer biologically based parts, novel devices andsystems as well as redesigning existing, natural biological systems.

Synthetic biology1

has many potential applications from improved drug delivery treatments toadvances in the production of biofuels or even enhancing the ways in which underground minerals canbe mined

2. In fact, programmable manufacturing systems have an almost infinite number of potential

applications and, as a result, have been suggested by some as paving the way for a new industrialrevolution

3. This new technology also introduces a number of major social, ethical and environmental

risks and challenges, including the uncontrolled release of synthetic organisms, bioterrorism,commercial monopolies, and the philosophical and religious concerns associated with creatingartificial life

4. The UK Research Councils moved to address these issues through the Biotechnology &

Biological Sciences Research Councils (BBSRC) Bioscience for Society Panel, the Balmer & Martinreport on Social and Ethical Challenges

5and through a large scale public dialogue

6.

There has recently been a rapid rise in research activity. Within Europe early stage funding for 18synthetic biology research and policy projects has been provided by the EUs New and EmergingScience and Technology (NEST) programme. In the UK 90 million has been committed for syntheticbiology through a number of programmes and networks predominantly funded by the BBSRC and theEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). In November 2012, the departmentfor Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) announced it will be investing a further 20 million in thesector

7; a month later the newly established synthetic biology leadership council met for the first time

8.

Given the many potential applications and significance of this technology, the TSB has highlightedsynthetic biology as an area which could offer strong growth potential for the UKs economy

9.Indeed,

in March 2013, it was announced that a 5.3 million investment from the TSB, BBSRC and EPSRCwould help to fund 15 synthetic biology projects across the UK

10. A multidisciplinary community is

rapidly emerging via dedicated programmes and facilities11

.The UK is also playing a major role

internationally and, as a result, is recognised as leading12

for example with a series of recent symposiainvolving other market leaders, China and the US

13, and with the BBSRC taking a leading role with the

13 European funding agencies as part of the ERA-NET in Synthetic Biology (ERASynBio)14

.

1Including the design of interchangeable parts which can be assembled into pathways for the fabrication of novel components, the construction of

entirely artificial cells and the creation of synthetic biomolecules.2 Smith, C. (2013) Discovery in synthetic biology a step closer to new industrial revolution, Imperial College London. For more examples seewww.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1210-biology-by-design.pdf3

Ibid.4

Balmer, A. & Martin, P. (2008) Synthetic biology; social and ethical challenges, BBSRC/ University of Nottinghamhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdf

6www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspx

7BIS Press Release (2012) http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspx[accessed 22

March 2013]8

Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UKwww.gov.uk/governmentGovernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdf[accessed 22 March 2013] p.49TSB (2012)A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK, UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group/RCUK, p.3

10www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-

bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+201311

Such as the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation (CSBI) See:www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/about[accessed 22 March 2013]and the Synthetic Biology Special Interest Group (SynBioSIG), See:https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-

group/overview[accessed 22 March 2013] and the Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN), See:https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/biosciencesktn/about-the-biosciences-ktn [accessed 22 March 2013]12

Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UKp.413

A blog summarising the London symposium can be found here: Bland, J. (2011) Six academies symposium: engineering principleshttp://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/ [accessed 22 March 2013]14

See:www.erasynbio.net/[accessed 22 March 2013]
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1210-biology-by-design.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1210-biology-by-design.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspxhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspxhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/abouthttp://www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/abouthttp://www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/abouthttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/biosciencesktn/about-the-biosciences-ktnhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/biosciencesktn/about-the-biosciences-ktnhttp://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://www.erasynbio.net/http://www.erasynbio.net/http://www.erasynbio.net/http://www.erasynbio.net/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/biosciencesktn/about-the-biosciences-ktnhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttps://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interest-group/overviewhttp://www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/abouthttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edge-bioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspxhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1210-biology-by-design.pdf


6/18


3

However, there are currently limited examples of the gathering of public views on synthetic biologyand thus limited understanding of what these public views are. As a new and emerging field oftechnology, a parallel can be drawn with other technologies such as genetic modification (GM),nanotechnology and software engineering. In this light, the evolution of public opinion towards thisemerging sector is of great interest to the scientific community and policy makers alike, as reflected in

current stakeholder discussions15. It is worth noting that the different activities of public engagementon this topic would have all had different methodologies and aims. As such, many of the nuances ofthe outcomes or particular reasoning behind using different methodologies will not be captured in thisreport, which instead focuses on a high level account of public views summarised across the variousdifferent engagement methodologies used.

2 Public viewsAs a new, emerging field there is relatively little evidence on the views of the UK public with respect tosynthetic biology. Only two public dialogues have been conducted, supplemented by some UK-basedand Europe-wide polling. However, civil society, stakeholder and academic communities areinterested in, and concerned by, the potential public reaction to aspects of synthetic biology, and anumber of studies, conferences and symposia have addressed these concerns. Due to the relative

scarcity of public research, civil society, stakeholder and US-related activities have been included inthe selection of sources for this report, all of which are listed in Appendix I.

There is much academic literature on the topic of synthetic biology, which is not reflected here, giventhe focus of this report. This report also does not attempt any detailed comparison of how the publicview synthetic biology compared to other technological developments. This would require furtherresearch to reach any comprehensive conclusions.

Focusing predominantly on the UK public dialogues which have been undertaken, (but alsoincorporating data from UK, EU and US polling, as well as insights from stakeholder discussions,academic research and media reporting), a number of key themes emerge:

1. Synbio is not in the public domain

Public dialogue projects have shown that despite the public viewing the capabilities of scientists as

amazing or extraordinary16

, participants felt unable to engage in how new technologies worked andfelt they are kept in the dark about developments and only shown the positive sides of science

17. A

public dialogue study undertaken in 2009 found only a third of respondents had heard of syntheticbiology. While only 3% had heard a lot about synthetic biology, a further fifth (19%) in the UK said thatthey had heard a little, while another 10% said that they had heard the term but did not know what itmeant

18. This was mirrored in Europe-wide polling in 2010, which showed that a very large majority

(83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology (Figure 1)19

.

15Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date in Biosciences, 4, LSE, p.307. It is worth noting that the former

Government Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, is on record as saying that the estimated cost to the economy of the controversy over GMfood crops has amounted to a billion pounds a year in lost revenue to UK plc. See:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/115/7120504.htm16

www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdf17

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, prepared by TNS-BMRB, p.2818

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, prepared by People, Science and Policy Ltd, p.1819

TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, European Commission/TNS Opinion and Social, pp.124-5
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/115/7120504.htmhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/115/7120504.htmhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdfhttp://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/115/7120504.htm


7/18


8/18


5

Figure 2: 2011 statistics on UK public awareness of science topics (from Ipsos-MORI Public AttitudesTowards Science Report)

2. The public have high hopes for the possibilities presented by synthetic biology

Particularly in the field of medicine, dialogue activities have demonstrated that the public viewsynthetic biology as having tremendous potential to overcome serious diseases and injuries

23.

Participants also considered the potential of the technology in terms of replacement (e.g. developingnew materials, including those that were in short supply, such as fuels)

24.

Participants in dialogue activities also expressed a hope that the technology could be used to createwealth and improve the UKs economic competitiveness. Participants demonstrated pride in theknowledge that British researchers would be pioneers in this new area

25. The status of Britain as a

leading research base has also received some mention in the UK press, particularly following theLondon-based 2011 international symposium on synthetic biology

26.

3. The public have concerns over the control and regulation of synthetic biology

The urgent need for effective international regulation and control was one of the most important issuesidentified by participants in the 2010 BBSRC/EPSRC public dialogue

27. These findings were notable in

the 2009 dialogue study by RAEng and the 2010 European opinion poll study in which concerns werealso raised as to how governments could feasibly control synthetic biology and whether they couldkeep up with the rapid speed of development

28. Prominent concerns also existed around the likely

potential for large corporations to patent developments and create monopolies. Participants argued

that this could potentially maintain dependence of developing countries on the West29.

The issue of regulation has also been highlighted by some elements of the civil society community, ledby Friends of the Earth in the US, in a report entitled Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology.The report argues that the lack of specific regulations in respect to synthetic biology is damaging to

23Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.26

24RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.20

25Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.34 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public

dialogue on synthetic biology, p.3226

Sample, I. (2011) How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public? the Guardian:www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-china[accessed 23 March 2013]27

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.828

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.7 and TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1;biotechnology, p.729

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-chinahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-chinahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-china


9/18


6

public participation and transparency and provides no recourse in the case of public health accidents,environmental disruption or economic harms

30.

4. Misuse of this technology is a potential concern

Concerns around the misuse of synthetic biology, for example with regards to bioterrorism, have

arisen in previous studies. In the 2009 RAEng study, participants did focus on this as an issue, buthighlighted the fact that bioweapons such as anthrax were already available

31. In the 2010

BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue, participants showed concern that new diseases, pathogens and virusescould be deliberately created by individuals or organisations with access to such technology, with the

report stating while participants generally noted there were probably easier ways to mount aterrorist attack than using synthetic biology; there was a concern that as the field advanced thiscould become a real issue

32.

Such concerns have been replicated in the stakeholder community which cites the potential forefficient, rapid synthesis of viral and other pathogen genomes

33. There has also been wide coverage

of such security concerns in the media dating back to 2005, when synthetic biologists recreated theSpanish flu virus that killed 50 million

34.

5. There are concerns for the environmental and health impact of synthetic biology

All of the dialogue studies and opinion polls found that a section of the public have concerns aroundplaying God. The BBSRC study found that, despite participants finding it difficult to articulate theseconcerns, many felt uncomfortable about the ability to create living entities

35. Such concerns echo

public attitudes towards GM as going against nature,36

a comparison which has not been lost onmany stakeholders and academics in the field

37. These ethical concerns were replicated in the

European and US polls38

. Similarly, broad concerns have been raised over the possibility ofenvironmental contamination through the uncontrolled release of synthetic organisms, the effects ofwhich were understood to be unpredictable and potentially far-reaching

39.

3 Analysis of viewsFirstly, it is worth pointing out that many of the messages emerging in this report may well be reflective

of public views about other new or emerging science and technology topics, for example particularlywhere the definitions or precise applications are uncertain, and the terminology complex. The degreeto which views on synthetic biology are comparable or not to other similar emerging or newtechnologies is outside the scope of this report, but is worth consideration by way of context for theanalysis below.

3.1 The overall message: uncertainty

The overarching message arising from dialogue projects and opinion polls is that the public do notcurrently feel that they can fully assess the implications and applications of this new technology, whichis hardly surprising given its relative infancy:

People surveyed in opinion polls felt they were not sufficiently informed to weigh up the risksand benefits of synthetic biology

40

30Friends of the Earth US, International centre for Technology Assessment & ETC Group (2011) Draft principles for the oversight of synthetic

biologyhttp://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdf [accessed on 8th

March 2013], p.4. This report has also received some coverage in the press: See Marris, C. & Rose, M. (2012) Lets get real onsynthetic biology,New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.html[accessed 8th March 2013]31

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.3032


Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: onlinecommunity discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology in Syst Synth Biology, 2(1-2), pp.71734

Sample, I. (2005) Security fears as flu virus that killed 50 million is recreated the Guardian:www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3 [accessed 23 March 2013]

35Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.39

36Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.25

37Miller, B. (2011) Does synthetic biology need a new PR campaign? and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK

debate to date p.30638TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.7 and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008)Awareness of and

attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology, produced by Peter D Hart Research Associates, p.1039

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.34. Also raised in: Friends of the EarthUS, International centre for Technology Assessment & ETC Group (2011) Draft principles for the oversight of synthetic biology, p.640

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, pp.25-6,
http://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdfhttp://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdfhttp://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdfhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdf


10/18


7

There was a sense of uncertainty emerging from more in depth dialogue, both in terms of whatsynthetic biology could do and where it was going, , both across public participants andstakeholders

41

One of the outcomes of the BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue was that members of the public felt

there was an ongoing requirement for engagement as the technology develops, particularly forresearch councils to explain how some of the conditions participants placed on research havebeen met. However, stakeholder and academic communities are uncertain about how toengage with the public; though there is unanimous agreement that the public need to beengaged

42. The stakeholder, academic and policy circles are also uncertain if a major public

outcry may occur as with GM in the late 1990s and early 2000s43

However, the overall message of uncertainty arising from public engagement activities must be viewedin context. While it is true that synthetic biology is an area the public feel particularly uninformed about,when questioned about science and scientific research developments more generally nearly half of thepublic claimed to feel uninformed

44. There are in fact some clear views emerging with respect to

synthetic biology, as outlined below.

3.2 Commonly held views

The general public reaction to synthetic biology can be seen as one of extremes; it is bothexciting and scary

45

The need forregulation and control which could keep up with developments in the sectorwas flagged up as highly important by participants in dialogue studies

46

The conflict between the meanings of the terms synthetic and biology was difficult for some,evoking images of living things as artificial which made members of the public uneasy

47. This

is related to a common concern that synthetic biology could lead to the transgression ofnature

48

Optimism is high: the public see synthetic biology as presenting solutions to some of theworlds major challenges, including food shortages, climate change, energy needs anddiseases

49. Similarly, the public have viewed synthetic biology as an area of science which

operates on a societal, mass level as opposed to an individual, personal level (notwithstandingthe fact that this may change if more personalised applications of synthetic biology develop,such as in the field of medicine)

50

The motivation of scientists in this sector was questioned. Members of the public wereconcerned that in the quest for knowledge important things could be overlooked

51. Indeed,

the BBSRC dialogue led to the public formulating five central questions for synthetic biologyresearchers:

o What is the purpose?

o Why do you want to do it?

o What are you going to gain from it?

o What else is it going to do?

o

How do you know you are right? (ie how to do you know that what you are doing isethical?)

41RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.18 and Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC

(2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.2842

Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date p.30943

Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: onlinecommunity discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UKdebate to date p.30744

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.3045

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.3246

Ibid, pp.40-4447

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.40 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology;

public dialogue on synthetic biology, pp.19-2048 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.4049

Ibid, p.3650

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.2151

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.37, Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Publicattitudes to science 2011 main report, p.74


11/18


8

That synthetic biology could produce big winners, and big losers. Big business was seen asa likely winner which may undermine the potential to reduce social inequalities with thistechnology

52

That scientists had a responsibility to consider the wider implications of their work. This has

been connected to a sense that the public considered themselves powerless to influencethe sciences more generally, thus requiring scientists to keep the public interest in mind whenundertaking research

53

3.3 Areas of uncertainty or diversity of views

Survey respondents to the RAEng public dialogue revealed a difference in attitude between themodification and creation of micro-organisms

54.

In the survey element of the RAEng process, more of the respondents (46%) disagreed ratherthan agreed (24%) with the statement re-designing an existing micro-organism so that itproduces medicines and biofuels should not be allowed. However, this is less than the 63%who supported the statement creating new man-made micro-organisms that will producemedicines or biofuels should be supported

The dialogue participants indicated that there was more support for the creation of completelyartificial organisms, partially because these were perceived to have less chance of survival inthe event of an accidental release

The GM public outcry seems to be at the forefront for much of the stakeholder, academic and policycommunities when discussing public engagement

55

The public views coming out of public dialogues would appear to conform to these concerns,with GM being mentioned regularly and in a negative light when discussing the potential usesand regulation of synthetic biology. However, it is not clear to what degree the GM experiencewill be replicated for the field of synthetic biology and if these fears are well-founded

A declaration, led by Friends of the Earth in the US has strongly criticised the way thisemerging technology is being developed

56

3.4 Possible influencing factors

How informed the public feel towards new technologies like synthetic biology is linked toinformation sources. People who mostly find their information about science in traditional media like

television or newspapers are among the least informed (37% and 41% respectively), while those thatget most of their information online, either via science blogs or other websites, are more likely to feelinformed (71% and 55% respectively). More generally, those with access to the Internet tend to feelmore informed than those without

57. The findings from the Ipsos-MORI poll have been echoed by the

opinion poll carried out by TNS on behalf of the European Commission in 2010 which showed thatlevels of awareness of synthetic biology among daily Internet users was higher than those who usedthe Internet less regularly, if at all

58.

Engagement with and knowledge of science issues may relate to media coverage. A 2010 poll

conducted by Ipsos-Mori showed that relatively new technologies such as synthetic biology andnanotechnology came bottom of the table in terms of how informed respondents felt. Contrastingly,respondents felt far more informed about other areas such as nuclear power and GM, areas whichhave garnered far more media coverage in the past decade

59. Recent media coverage in late 2012

and early 2013, may indirectly indicate a growing level of awareness of synthetic biology.

A sense of uncertainty prevails. As summarised earlier in this section, the overall message arisingfrom recent research into public attitudes towards synthetic biology in the UK is one of uncertainty. As

52Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010)Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.38

53Ibid, p.41 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.22

54RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.6

55Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online

community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717 and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UKdebate to date pp.306-756

www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biology57


TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.12559

http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biologyhttp://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biologyhttp://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biologyhttp://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biology


12/18


9

noted in the evaluation of BBSRC/EPSRCs public dialogue carried out ten months after the originalstudy, many participants held on to a number of misconceptions and remained uncertain andunconfident about the technology, and their own ability to assess its risks and benefits

60.

Public concerns related to regulation havent changed over time. Prominent in both the RAE

public dialogue of 2009, the BBSRC public dialogue of 2010 and the BBSRC public dialogueevaluation of 2011, is the way in which the public associate synthetic biology as a technology whichcould be thought of as going against nature

61. Related to this issue for many of the participants was

the need for strict regulation of the sector, though doubts were repeatedly expressed about thefeasibility of a regulatory system being put in place which could keep up with the rapid development ofthe technology.

Demographics: Gender may affect level of awareness and attitudes towards synthetic biology.Ipsos-MORI research shows that despite the level of awareness of synthetic biology being low for bothgenders, women tend to feel less informed than men (minus 81% and minus 75% respectively)

62. This

appears to be similar to some other areas of science such as nanotechnology, but different to otherssuch as climate change and clinical trials. Approval ratings also varied according to gender, with 44%of men approving in the TNS poll, compared to 36% of women

63, such findings were echoed the UK-

based Ipsos-MORI poll64

. Again, this appears to vary depending on the area of science and

technology being asked about rather than being consistent across all areas.

Demographics: Higher social grades may view synthetic biology in a more positive light. Whenasked to weigh the benefits and risks of synthetic biology, respondents from higher social gradesviewed the net benefits as outweighing the risks far more than those from lower social grades (27%and 13% respectively)

65.

4 TrendsGiven that synthetic biology is a new technology and that research into public views is understandablyin its infancy, identifying trends across a short period of time risks placing excessive importance onsmall differences between public dialogues over a two year period. Due to the lack of data on publicviews trends can therefore not be confidently identified at this stage.

5 Gap analysis

5.1 The public and synthetic biology, March 2013

Interest in the field of synthetic biology is progressing at a rapid rate, and will continue to do so. Publicdialogues, as well as stakeholder discussions and the current Synthetic Biology Roadmap

66recognise

that a key challenge will be one of regulation and how this is to keep abreast of the developingtechnology. Such a challenge also applies to the gathering and monitoring of public views, a challengewhich scientists and stakeholders have already recognised as urgently required. Indeed, one of theoutcomes of the BBSRC dialogue was that members of the public felt there was an ongoingrequirement for engagement as the technology develops.

Based upon the few dialogue and social research activities that have occurred we can confidentlyassert that at this stage the public do not have a strong grasp of the technology and its risks andbenefits, although the RAEng and BBSRC/EPSRC dialogues both demonstrated that members of thepublic, given time and information, do have the ability to add value to policy discussions. Another keytheme arising from the activities undertaken so far has been one of trust; in terms of scientistsactivities, stakeholders motives and the Governments ability to regulate this emerging sector. Thishas been recognised as important from within the synthetic biology community

67.

60Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011),Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, prepared by Laura Grant

Associates, pp.18-1961

Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011),Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, p.1962

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, Ipsos-MORI, p.9863

TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.13264

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, p.15565 Ibid, p.15566

UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdf67

Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: onlinecommunity discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717 and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UKdebate to date pp.306-7


13/18


10

Current policy development in response to public dialogue

The BBSRC/EPSRC evaluation68

points to four areas in which the BBSRC/EPSRC public dialogueappears to have led to a shift in policy, including:

It has provided impetus to take public concerns about synthetic biology to regulators via

discussions with the Chief Scientific Advisor It has catalysed and informed EPSRCs work on responsible innovation by linking to the

dialogue through the Societal Issues Panel69

The BBSRC has reviewed the way in which researchers making grant applications addresssocial and ethical issues as a direct result of the dialogue, which in turn has createdopportunities for the public engagement team to collaborate with colleagues that work onresearch funding

It prompted an RCUK proposal to Sciencewise to fund research that draws together the

findings across dialogues in areas of emerging technology

The fast moving nature of the technology and its disruptive potential means that attention should bepaid to whether developments in the technology suggest an appropriate time for further public

involvement in order that policy can take into account public views. The BBSRC dialogue concludedthat the public wanted to continue to be involved and informed, and the RAEng dialogue identified anumber of specific areas where further exploration might be useful. There might also be room forongoing engagement of some kind in order to identify emerging trends in public views and attitudestowards synthetic biology over a number of years.

Gauging public reaction to potential emerging applications of synthetic biology and involvingmembers of the public in early discussions about these applications could be an opportunity to buildon the five key questions emerging from the BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue by examining them in a morepractical context.

Understanding the differences in public opinion in relation to media coverage and consumption asthe area of synthetic biology develops may be an area for further consideration.

68Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011),Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, p.38

69http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/
http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/


14/18


11

6 ReferencesBalmer, A. & Martin, P. (2008) Synthetic biology; social and ethical challenges, BBSRC/ University ofNottingham

BIS Press Release (2012)http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspx[accessed 22 March 2013]

Bland, J. (2011) Six academies symposium: engineering principles,

http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/[accessed 22 March 2013]

European Commission (2012) Synthetic biologys potential controversy assessed, News Alert Issue288:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdf[accessed 22March 2013]

Friends of the Earth US, ICTA & ETC Group (2011) The principles for the oversight of syntheticbiology:www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf[accessed on 22 March 2013]

Global Information. Press Release (2011) Global Value of Synthetic Biology Market to Reach $10.8Billion in 2016www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtml[accessed 22 March 2013]

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, Ipsos-MORI

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, Ipsos-MORI

Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date in Biosciences, 4,LSE

Marris, C. & Rose, M. (2012) Lets get real on synthetic biology, New Scientist:www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.html[accessed 22March 2013]

Miller, B. (2011) Does synthetic biology need a new PR campaign? inA Global Village, Issue 3

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008)Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnologyand synthetic biology, produced by Peter D Hart Research Associates.

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, prepared by People, Science andPolicy Ltd

Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011), Synthetic biology dialogue: followup report, prepared by Laura Grant Associates

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report,prepared by TNS-BMRB

Sample, I. (2011) How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public? the Guardian:www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-china[accessed 22 March

2013]Sample, I. (2005) Security fears as flu virus that killed 50 million is recreated the Guardian:www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3[accessed 22 March 2013]

Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. and Biller-Adorno, N., (2008)SYNBIOSAFE e-conference in Syst Synth Biology, 2(1-2), pp.717

Smith, C. (2013) Discovery in synthetic biology a step closer to new industrial revolution, ImperialCollege London

TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, European Commission/TNSOpinion and Social

TSB (2012)A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK, UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap CoordinationGroup/RCUK, p.3

UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012)http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdf
http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdfhttp://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtmlhttp://www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtmlhttp://www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-chinahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-chinahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdfhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdfhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-chinahttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.htmlhttp://www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtmlhttp://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synthetic_biology.pdf%20p.4http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdfhttp://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspxhttp://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspx


15/18


12

Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UKwww.gov.uk/governmentGovernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdf[accessed 22 March 2013]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdf


16/18


12

Appendix I Summary of public engagementactivities related to synthetic biology since

2008Type ofPublicResearch

Produced/ Deliveredby

Title Date Method/ Focus

Poll Science and TechnologyInnovation Program atthe Woodrow WilsonInternational Center forScholars and Peter D.Hart ResearchAssociates

Awareness andImpressions ofSynthetic Biology

2013 Nationwide telephone survey among804 adults in the USA, exploringattitudes toward the entities involved inthe oversight of new scientific andtechnological advances, awareness ofnanotechnology, and awareness ofand attitudes toward synthetic biology,

and impressions of potentialapplications of synthetic biology

Media Reporting New Scientist Let's get real onsynthetic biology

2012 Reports on the need for more nuancein the public discussion of syntheticbiology

Civil SocietyPolicyDocument forPublicDissemination

Friends of the EarthU.S., InternationalCenter for TechnologyAssessment, ETC Group

The Principles for theOversight ofSynthetic Biology

2012 Drafted through a collaborativeprocess among civil society groups,including a number of UKorganisations

Academic

Research

European Commission Synthetic biologys

potential controversyassessed

2012 Assessment of the potential for social

and political conflict to syntheticbiology by drawing comparisons withthe controversy surrounding geneticmodification (GM) in the 1990s

Media Reporting The Guardian How do syntheticbiologists keep thesupport of thepublic?

2011 Discusses how scientists can maintainpublic support in this area, raisingissues around human cloning, killerpathogens and a potential UK-Chinacollaboration

Opinion Poll Ipsos-MORI/ BIS/BSA Public Attitudes to

Science 2011

2011 Ipsos MORI carried out 2,103

interviews with UK adults aged 16+from 11 October to 19 December 2010including deliberative workshops withmembers of the general public in fourlocations: London, Beverley,Birmingham and Cardiff

Questions on synthetic biology werelimited to multiple choice questionsconcerning: the publics perceived risksand benefits of the technology, howinformed the public felt about thetechnology

Blog Post A Global Village- Onlinenewsletter/journal

Does SyntheticBiology Need A NewPR Campaign?

2011 Post written by Imperial CollegeLondon student


17/18


13

Opinion Poll TNS/ EuropeanCommission

Eurobarometer 73.1:Biotechnology

2010 Between 29 January and 17 February2010, TNS Opinion & Social carriedout the Eurobarometer, on request ofthe European Commission, focusingon European public opinions towards

different types of BiotechnologiesIt covers the population of therespective nationalities of the EUMember States, resident in each of theMember States and aged 15 years andover. The basic sample design appliedin all states is a multistage, random(probability) one. In each country, anumber of sampling points was drawnwith probability proportional topopulation size (for a total coverage ofthe country) and to population density

Public Dialogue BBSRC, EPSRC,Sciencewise

Synthetic BiologyDialogue

2010 Findings based on a series of publicworkshops and stakeholder interviewson the science and issues surroundingsynthetic biology. An evaluation of thisstudy, including follow-up questions forparticipants, was carried out in 2011

Public Dialogue RAEng Synthetic Biology:Public dialogue onsynthetic biology

2009 Findings based on a dialogue activitywith 16 members of the public, and anationwide representative survey of1,000 adults aged 18 and over

Academic Paper LSE Synthetic Biology inthe Social Context

2009 This article provides a summary ofsome of the main events anddiscussions that have taken place inthe UK over the last few months onsocio-political aspects of syntheticbiology

US Opinion Poll Hart ResearchAssociates

Awareness of andAttitudes towardNanotechnology andSynthetic Biology

2008 A nationwide (US) survey among 1,003adults about awareness of andattitudes toward both nanotechnologyand synthetic biology

Two focus group sessions were

conducted in Baltimore, Maryland,August 2008, among adultsoneamong women and one among mento explore both unaided and informedimpressions of synthetic biology. Thestructure of the RAEng study of 2009was heavily influenced by this study

Academic/StakeholderResearch

Synbiosafe (funded byEuropean Commission)

SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: onlinecommunitydiscussion on thesocietal aspects of

synthetic biology

2008 As part of the SYNBIOSAFE project,an open e-conference was carried out,with the aim to stimulate an opendebate on the societal implications ofsynthetic biology. The e-conference

attracted 124 registered participantsfrom 23 different countries anddifferent professional backgrounds,who made 182 contributions in six


18/18


different categories including publicperception

Those selected for invitation wereprimarily from participant lists frommajor SB related conferences, notably

SB2.0 (Berkeley, May 2006), SB3.0(Zurich, 06/2007), the ESF conferenceon SB (ECSB) (Barcelona, 11/2007)the joint Visionary Seminar of Leuven.Inc and IMEC (Leuven, 11/2007) andthe list of 38 NGOs that signed thepetition letter against the SB 2.0 self-governance declaration

public views on synthetic biology

Documents