According to a new public opinion survey from the UK Royal Academy of Engineering, the great British public is cautiously enthusiastic about the emerging field of synthetic biology.
Last summer, the Washington DC-based Synthetic Biology Project published a survey of US awareness and attitudes towards synbio. The new study builds on that work by taking a look what people in the UK make of synthetic biology. Drawing on a 1000-person strong phone survey and a more in-depth exploratory dialogue with 16 participants, it provides insight into current awareness of synthetic biology, potential public perception speed bumps, and some possible routes toward greater public engagement in the technology’s development.
- A word cloud of responses to the question “What comes to mind when I say synthetic biology.” From the RAE report.
I’ll probably write about the report in more depth at a later date—some of the recommendations from the dialogue are particularly interesting as is the process of empowering people to make informed recommendations on an emerging technology such as synthetic biology. But for now, I’ll limit myself to some initial impressions from reading the report:
The overall impression from reading the report is that people in the UK are cautiously optimistic about the future beneficial development and use of synthetic biology. However, this optimism is tempered by concerns over possible safety issues, unresponsive or inappropriate regulation, and fear-mongering in the media.
It is clear that the participants in the dialogue faced a steep learning curve when it came to synthetic biology, but that with help most of them were able to come up to speed on what the technology entailed, and what the potential implications were. None of the 16 dialogue group participants had previously heard of synthetic biology. In the telephone poll, only 33% of respondents had come across the term previously—the same level of awareness was found amongst US respondents the Wilson Center study. However, after two evenings of learning bout and discussing synthetic biology, a number of participants in the dialogue had a clear grasp of the essence of what synthetic biology is about, what it can potential be used for, and some of the challenges its development raises. It was noted though that there are next to no good sources of information available that provide a lay audience with clear information on synthetic biology.
Generally, people were excited about the potential applications of synthetic biology. Using re-programmed microbes to produce biofuels and medical drugs were seen as positive applications – with greater emphasis given to biofuels, as an application that had the potential to make a difference to a greater number of people in the near future. There was less enthusiasm and more concern expressed for applications that would lead to the release of modified microbes into the environment, such as might occur in pollution remediation.
Effective risk management was clearly a concern. Regulation was seen as important for the success of synthetic biology, but only if it didn’t stifle innovation. Participants generally felt that synthetic biology practiced by amateurs outside the confines and constraints of established organizations—garage biotech—is a bad thing, and should be discouraged.
There was concern that the media could undermine the development of synthetic biology by scaremongering, and that efforts are needed to educate and inform people about the technology – thus allowing informed impressions to be made that weren’t unduly influenced by the media. This may be a particularly British perspective given the state of science reporting in some UK media outlets. But I found it interesting that the dialogue participants were sufficiently enamored with synbio that they didn’t want the media to upset the cart here, while at the same time they (presumably) represented the readership that the UK media write for.
There didn’t seem to be much concern over scientists “playing God” and creating new life-forms. In fact—and this I found surprising—there seemed to be some question over whether engineered microbes were actually alive. Treating modified or new microbes as non-living commodities conveniently circumvents a number of ethical issues here. But I wonder whether this attitude will persist as synthetic biology develops. And if it does, I can’t help wondering whether this raises ethical issues in and of itself. In contrast to microbes, there seemed to be a consensus that tinkering with “higher” life forms was questionable.
There seemed to be strong support for the UK government investing in synthetic biology—along with some bemusement that Britain was already ahead of most other countries in the field.
Overall, these results should be seen as good news for synthetic biology. They suggest the opportunity exists for strong partnerships between members of the public and scientists, government and businesses in developing the field and translating it into useful applications. But there is also an underlying note of caution—get things wrong, and synthetic biology could become another genetically modified organisms fiasco—or worse.
The hope is that scientists, government and business learn from past mistakes, and work with regular people to develop synthetic biology in an acceptable, relevant and responsible way. This report is a great initial step toward doing this. It’ll be interesting to see what comes next.
Related posts:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Lots to go at there, but the business about people not recognising man-made life as life is fascinating. Does it not suggest the sample have misunderstood or stuck their heads in the sand re how life is being defined here (is it being defined by anyone?). Stands for reason people don’t see man playing god here, because they don’t equate what man can do with that they attribute to god. Of course, higher life forms are different – they get that extra kapow! injected, thunderbolt style, from the unknowable at some point.
Point is – what exactly do the UK think they’re giving the ‘thumbs up’ to?
I was the commissioner for this study – and was present as an observer for many of the discussions. People did not specifically mention that they perceived man-made life to be non-living – but some of the dialogue participants thought that micro-organisms in general (yeast, for example) were not living. This could be one reason why there was such support for the technology as it was presented (while there was concern raised over re-engineering higher-level organisms). Although more work needs to be done to unpick the underlying reasons for supporting this emerging technology. The study was fairly small in scope – so we did not get the opportunity to explore this theme much further – but it would certainly be fascinating to have more in-depth discussions on how people define what is, and what is not, alive, in their own terms. A much larger study is being planned by the Research Councils – and we hope our study will help to highlight some of the more interesting issues that arose.
Thanks Lesley – both for the clarification on the “living/non-living” question, and the heads-up on the larger study.
I wonder whether there was some mis-translation or mis-understanding here. In the report, at least one person is quoted as thinking about using yeast in bread-making as suggesting microbes are simply a commodity rather than a life-form (I don’t think I am mis-representing this). I wonder whether this line of reasoning led to the rather unusual classification of artificial/engineered microbes as not living.
Either way, this will be a fascinating one to watch…