Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 2/2016

23.06.2016 | Original Paper

Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts

verfasst von: Kristin Hagen

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In science policy, public controversy around synthetic biology has often been presented as a major risk because it could deter innovation. The following inter-related strategies for avoiding contestation have been observed: (1) There have been attempts to close down debates by alluding to the importance and legitimacy of reliance on scientific evidence as input to regulatory processes. (2) Scientific policy advice has stressed sufficiency of existing regulation, economic risks of additional regulation and/or suggestions for monitoring that are limited in scope. (3) Initiatives for self-governance have narrowed the scope of topics for consideration. (4) Engagement with humanities, social sciences and arts has been co-opted for legitimisation and science communication. Although such agendas are of course not ubiquitous, in this paper, I criticise that instrumentally motivated engagement has been supported not only by the scientific community but also by policy institutions and funding bodies. I argue that it is good that this now seems to fuel controversy in the academic and policy realms. As synthetic biology is not the only technoscientific field to see such dynamics, this is also part of the broader context of debate about the governance of science, especially the concept of “responsible research and innovation” (RRI) currently promoted in the EU.
Vorheriger Artikel Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the Challenge of Emerging Technologies
Nächster Artikel A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
This fits into patterns of argumentation in emerging technologies generally, as set out in [7].
 
2
But see its importance in the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap [14].
 
3
Within the EC 7th Framework Programme, the project SYNENERGENE (www.​synenergene.​eu; accessed 15 Sept 2015) explicitly addresses the public engagement and stakeholder mutual learning aspects of RRI with regard to synthetic biology. See also the early elaborate incorporation of RRI in the human practices part of the Valencia Team’s 2013 iGEM contribution. (2013.igem.org/Team:Valencia_Biocampus/HP; accessed 15 Sept 2015).
 
4
See progressproject.eu. Other current FP7 Science in Society projects on RRI include Res-AGorA (res-agora.eu), GREAT (www.​great-project.​eu) and Responsibility (responsibility-rri.eu), which together with ProGReSS constitute the “Group of Four” (Go4) projects. All accessed 22 September 2015.
 
5
This was part of an affirmative response in the subsequent volume of the journal by Jay Keasling on behalf of 16 correspondents, including other front-figures of synthetic biology, such as George Church and Wendell Lim, and also the Synberc Policy and Practices leaders Kenneth Oye and Megan Palmer [43]. See also the more critical response by Sam Weiss Evans on behalf of 21 correspondents with many of the social scientists most active in the field (including, as the other communication, Synberc Policy and Practices co-director Megan Palmer) [44].
 
6
More recently, ecological risks of synthetic biology have been put on the agenda by the scientific community [61‐63], the CBD [3], and the EC [64]. With the challenges posed by genome editing making the issue more virulent [52], calls for regulatory reform (e.g., [55‐57]) may gain momentum.
 
7
Although interventions in human germ line and embryos are in many countries not legal, this situation has become challenged with genome editing [71‐73].
 
8
In the view of some authors, this was an overly careful approach (e.g. polemically ([78], p. 54)).
 
9
No matter how ethically sensitive, responsible, open and engaged a scientific community wants to be, it may arguably be too much to expect activities that deeply question the field, decrease its funding opportunities or increase the risk of public contestation. Of course, there nevertheless remains much to be said in favour of benchside engagement and sensitivity to ethical and societal issues.
 
10
www.​syntheticaesthet​ics.​org. Accessed 15 Sept 2015. See also the book that documents the project [91].
 
12
The Centre of Excellence in Biological Arts at the School of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, www.​symbiotica.​uwa.​edu.​au. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.
 
13
www.​biofaction.​com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.
 
14
www.​bio-fiction.​com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.
 
15
www.​cisynbio.​com. Accessed 15 Sept 2015.
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014) Emerging policy issues in synthetic biology. OECD Publishing. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​9789264208421-en. Accessed 15 July 2015
3.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2015) Synthetic biology. Part I: potential impacts of synthetic biology on biological diversity. Part II: gaps and overlaps with the provisions of the convention and other agreements. CBD Technical Series No. 82, CBD, Montreal
4.
Engelhard M (2016) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin
5.
European Commission, The Scientific Committees on Health and Environmental Risks, Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, and Consumer Safety (2014) Opinion on synthetic biology I: definition. European Union, Luxembourg
6.
7.
8.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030—designing a policy agenda. OECD, Paris
9.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2010) Nationale Forschungsstrategie BioÖkonomie 2030. Unser Weg zu einer bio-basierten Wirtschaft. BMBF Referat Bioökonomie, Berlin
10.
11.
Audétat M, Barazzetti G, Dorthe G, Joseph C, Kaufmann A, Vinck D (2015) Sciences et technologies émergentes: pourquoi tant de promesses? Hermann Editions, Paris
12.
13.
Müller M (2016) “First species whose parent is a computer”—synthetic biology as technoscience, colonizing futures, and the problem of the digital. In: Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Societal and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 101–113
14.
UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK. Technology Strategy Board, Swindon
15.
16.
17.
18.
Campos L (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, Vriend H (eds) Synthetic biology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 5–21CrossRef
19.
Acevedo-Rocha CG (2016) The synthetic nature of biology. In: Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (eds) Ambivalences of creating life. Societal and philosophical dimensions of synthetic biology. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 9–53
20.
Myskja B, Heggem R (2006) The human and social sciences in interdisciplinary biotechnology research: Trojan horses or useful idiots? In: Kaiser M, Lien M (eds) Ethics and the politics of food: preprints of the 6th Congress of the International Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Wageningen Academic Pub, pp 138–142
21.
22.
23.
Guston DH (2014) Understanding “anticipatory governance”. Soc Stud Sci 44:218–242CrossRef
24.
Zwart H, Landeweerd L, van Rooij A (2014) Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from “ELSA” to “RRI”. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:11. doi:10.​1186/​s40504-014-0011-x CrossRef
25.
von Schomberg R (2010) Organising collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding nanotechnology: philosophy, policy and publics. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 61–70
26.
Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760. doi:10.​1093/​scipol/​scs093 CrossRef
27.
Van den Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, et al. (2013) Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on responsible research and innovation. European Commission/Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels
28.
Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 53–74
29.
Randles S, Dorbeck-Jung B, Lindner R, Rip A (2014) Report of the roundtable at S.NET Boston 2013: “where to next for responsible innovation”? In: Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Innovation and responsibility: engaging with new and emerging technologies. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA, Berlin, pp 19–37
30.
31.
Stirling A (2008) Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk: converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Ann NY Acad Sci 1128:95–110. doi:10.​1196/​annals.​1399.​011
32.
33.
Millstone E, Stirling A, Glover D (2015) Regulating genetic engineering: the limits and politics of knowledge. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2015:23–26
34.
35.
Horst M (2014) In focus: synthetic biology in society. Newsletter of the ERASynBio Newsletter 4th Edition, 2014, p. 4–5
36.
Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Keasling JD et al (2014) Correspondence. Synthetic biology: a global approach. Nature 510:218CrossRef
44.
Evans SW et al (2014) Correspondence. Synthetic biology: missing the point. Nature 510:218CrossRef
45.
Wilsdon J, Doubleday R (2015) Directions for scientific advice in Europe. Centre for Science and Policy, Cambridge
46.
Stilgoe J (2014) Don’t shut the door on the synthetic biology debate. The Guardian, Thursday 8 May 2014:8–9
47.
48.
Mampuys R, Brom F (2015) Ethics of dissent: a plea for restraint in the scientific debate about the safety of GM crops. J Agr Environ Ethic 09/2015. doi:10.​1007/​s10806-015-9564-9
49.
Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-cerezo E (2011) New plant breeding techniques state-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. European Commission Joint Research Centre JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24760 EN. European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.​2791/​60346
50.
51.
Jones HD (2015) Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nature Plants 1:14011CrossRef
52.
53.
Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2015) Stellungnahme/Statement. Chancen und Grenzen des genome editing/The opportunities and limits of genome editing. Halle (Saale)
54.
European Commission (2015) Opinion on synthetic biology II: risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects. European Union, Luxembourg
55.
56.
Winter G (2015) The regulation of synthetic biology by EU law: current state and prospects. In: Giese B, Pade C, Wigger H, von Gleich A (eds) Synthetic biology. Character and impact. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 213–234
57.
Winter G (2016) In search of a legal framework for synthetic biology. In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 171–211
58.
59.
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), acatech – Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina (2009) Synthetische Biologie. Stellungnahme. Halle (Saale)
60.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New Directions. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Washington, DC
61.
62.
63.
Oye KA, Esvelt K, Appleton E, Catteruccia F, Chruch G, Kuiken T, Bar-Yam Lightfoot S, McNamara J, Smidler A, Collins JP (2014) Regulating gene drives. Science 345(6197):626–628. doi:10.​1126/​science.​1254287 CrossRef
64.
European Commission (2015) Preliminary opinion on synthetic biology III: research priorities. European Union, Luxembourg
65.
Service RF (2006) Synthetic biologists debate policing themselves. Science 312(5777):1116CrossRef
66.
67.
Bügl H, Danner JP, Molinari RJ, Mulligan JT, Park H-O, Reichert B, Roth DA, Wagner R, Budowle B, Scripp RM, Smith JAL, Steele SJ, Church G, Endy D (2007) DNA synthesis and biological security. Nat Biotechnol 25:627–629. doi:10.​1038/​nbt0607-627 CrossRef
68.
69.
Baltimore BD, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, CornJE DGQ, Doudna J, Fenner M, Greely HT, Jinek M, Puck J, Sternberg SH (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348:36–38. doi:10.​1126/​science.​aab1028 CrossRef
70.
71.
Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:108CrossRef
72.
Reich J, Fangerau H, Fehse B, Hampel J, Hucho F, Köchy K, Korte M, Müller-Röber B, Taupitz J, Walter J, Zenke M (2015) Genomchirurgie beim Menschen – zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie. Eine Analyse der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Gentechnologiebericht. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW), Berlin
73.
74.
75.
Cho MK, Magnus D, Caplan AL, McGee, Ethics of Genomics Group (1999) Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science 286:2087, 2089–2090
76.
77.
Coenen C, Hennen L, Link H (2009) The ethics of synthetic biology. Contours of an emerging discourse. Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 18(2):82–87
78.
Carmen IH (2004) Politics in the laboratory. The constitution of human genomics. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
79.
Garfinkel MS, Endy D, Epstein GL, Friedman RM (2008) Synthetic biology. In: Crowley M (ed) From birth to death and bench to clinic: the hastings center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns. The Hastings Center, Garrison, NY, pp 163–167
80.
81.
ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. ETC Group, Ottawa
82.
ETC Group (2010) The new biomassters. Synthetic biology and the next assault on biodiversity and livelihoods. ETC Group, Ottawa
83.
84.
85.
Ried J, Braun M, Dabrock P (2011) Unbehagen und kulturelles Gedächtnis. Beobachtungen zur gesellschaftlichen Deutungsunsicherheit gegenüber Synthetischer Biologie, Was ist Leben – im Zeitalter seiner technischen Machbarkeit? Beiträge zur Ethik der Synthetischen Biologie. Alber, Freiburg i. Br, pp 345–369
86.
Lentzos F, Cockerton C, Finlay S, Hamilton A, Zhang J, Rose N (2012) The societal impact of synthetic biology. In: Baldwin G et al (eds) Synthetic biology: a primer. Imperial College Press, London, pp 131–149
87.
88.
89.
90.
Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRef
91.
Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P, Elfick A, Endy D (2014) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
92.
Hauser J, Schmidt M (2011) Gallery guide for the SYNTH-ETHIC exhibition in the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, May 14–June 28, 2011. Biofaction KG, Wien
93.
94.
Sauter A, Albrecht S, van Doren D, König H, Reiß T, Trojok R (2016) Synthetische Biologie – die nächste Stufe der Bio- und Gentechnologie. TAB-Arbeitsbericht 164. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB), Berlin
95.
Karberg S (2012) Synthetische Biologie in der Kunst: Spiegel für die Forschung. genosphären – Zeitschrift des Österreichischen Genomforschungsprogramms GEN-AU
96.
Catts O, Zurr I (2012) Life as a raw material: illusions of control. Somatotechnics 2:250–262CrossRef
97.
98.
99.
Pardo Avellaneda R, Hagen K (2016) Synthetic biology: public perceptions of an emergent field. In: Engelhard M (ed) Synthetic biology analysed. Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 127–170
100.
Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Public Underst Sci 21:188–194CrossRef
101.
102.
103.
104.
Vogt T (2010) Buying time—using nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies for a sustainable future. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding Nanotechnology. AKA-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 43–60
105.
Röspel DAR, Rossmann ED, Barthel K, et al. (2011) Kleine Anfrage: Stand und Perspektiven der Synthetischen Biologie. Deutscher Bundestag, 17. Wahlperiode. Drucksache 17/4898, 23.02.2011
Metadaten
Titel
Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts
verfasst von
Kristin Hagen
Publikationsdatum
23.06.2016
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0267-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

NanoEthics 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument

Original Paper

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing – new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology

Introduction

Nanoscale-Technologies as Subjects of Responsible Research and Innovation

Original Paper

Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the Challenge of Emerging Technologies

Editorial

Thematic Continuities and Fresh Perspectives

Original Paper

Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise