Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Some Kind of Genetic Engineering… Only One Step Further”—Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology in Austria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ambivalences of Creating Life

Part of the book series: Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment ((ETHICSSCI,volume 45))

Abstract

Synthetic biology has not yet raised substantial public debate in Austria. Against this background a series of citizen panels (CPs) with members of the Austrian public were conducted in November and December 2012. The CPs should offer citizens from a variety of backgrounds the possibility to discuss synthetic biology and give recommendations on its governance. The project was guided by the following questions: How do members of the Austrian public perceive synthetic biology? Which associations do they make and which frames emerge within their discussions? How do they discuss risks and opportunities of synthetic biology, and how are perceived challenges dealt with? Which issues are seen as relevant for synthetic biology governance? All discussions within the CPs were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using structured content analysis and interpretive frame analysis. The results show that beyond openly stated opinions, hopes, and concerns about issues known from scientific debates—such as long-term impacts, distributional justice, safety and security of synthetic biology—a number of latent attitudes towards synthetic biology and its governance emerged. These included an attitude of making sense of synthetic biology by drawing parallels to familiar research fields, most notably genetic engineering, and elements of distrust in science and governance authorities, resignation, or self-activation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Female participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

    Citizen panels were conducted in German and transcripts quoted in this chapter have been translated to English by the author.

  2. 2.

    The anti-GMO movement in Europe at the end of the 1990s was triggered by two events: (1) the import of GM crops—not labeled as such—from the U.S. to Europe, (2) the outbreak of the BSE scandal. Within this context, Austria was one of the first countries where anti-GMO movements emerged (Seifert 2002, 2003).

  3. 3.

    www.syntheticbiology.org. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.

  4. 4.

    The CPs were conducted in the framework of work provided to the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). The citizen panel study was coordinated and supervised by Herbert Gottweis.

  5. 5.

    Also the design of CPs is characterized heterogeneously in the scientific literature, which is due to the association of the term with completely different engagement mechanisms (Rowe and Frewer 2005). Accordingly, designs of CPs range from discussions within small groups of participants assumed to represent a specific community (Abelson et al. 2006; Guston 1999; Sheedy et al. 2008), to projects involving several hundred participants constituting a statistically representative sample and having more the form of surveys (Abelson et al. 2003; Nanz et al. 2010). Meetings are in some cases organized as singular events and in others as a sequence of meetings over a longer time period, with a selected standing group of participants.

  6. 6.

    In this connection it is important to know about two events that are considered particularly significant for Austria’s political culture and popular understanding of protest and democracy. First, during the 1970s a protest movement formed against the activation of the nuclear power plant “Zwentendorf”—ever since, Austria has been nuclear-free in electricity production. Second, in the mid-1980s a protest movement and mass-occupation of the wetland “Hainburger Au” hindered the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in the nature reserve. As a consequence of protester’s demonstrations, the natural ecosystem of the “Hainburger Au” has been left untouched until today and Austria’s national energy policy deeply influenced by the event (Seifert 2002).

  7. 7.

    Participant recruitment was carried out by Ursula Gottweis, Walburg Steurer, and Viktoria Veith.

  8. 8.

    The CPs were organized and conducted by Ursula Gottweis and Walburg Steurer.

  9. 9.

    Regarding the composition of the thematic units and selection of example cases the topic guide was inspired by those used in the UK “Synthetic Biology Dialogue” by BBSRC and EPSRC (2010) and in the public dialogue organized by the Royal Academy of Engineering (2009). Furthermore, case selection was inspired by a focus group study conducted by a group of researchers from the Chair of Ethics at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, which is yet to be published.

  10. 10.

    Male participant in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  11. 11.

    Conversation between two male participants in CP 6, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  12. 12.

    Male participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  13. 13.

    These terms are known in German under the buzzwords “Analog-Käse” and “Mogel-Schinken”, which had been at the centre of heated public debates throughout the previous five years (Die Welt 2009).

  14. 14.

    Male participant in CP 2, adults aged 18–49, Vienna.

  15. 15.

    Male participant in CP 6, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  16. 16.

    Male participant in CP 7, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  17. 17.

    Contergan was the trade name of a drug containing thalidomide, which was freely available in pharmacies in Western Germany from 1957 to 1961. It was, amongst others, used against morning sickness in pregnant women, and caused severe damage to children, most notably with regard to limb development.

  18. 18.

    Female participant in CP 5, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  19. 19.

    Male participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  20. 20.

    Male participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  21. 21.

    Conversation between two male participants in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  22. 22.

    Female participant in CP 5, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  23. 23.

    Male participant in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  24. 24.

    Conversation between two male (P1, P2), and two female (P3, P6) participants in CP 5, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  25. 25.

    Female participant in CP 4, adults aged 18–49, Vienna.

  26. 26.

    Conversation between a female (P1) and a male (P11) participant in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  27. 27.

    Female participant in CP 3, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  28. 28.

    Conversation between a female (P5) and three male (P2, P6, P9) participants in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  29. 29.

    Conversation between two male participants in CP 7, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  30. 30.

    Male participant in CP 6, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  31. 31.

    Male participant in CP1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  32. 32.

    Male participant in CP 3, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  33. 33.

    Female participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

  34. 34.

    Conversation between a female (P1) and a male (P2) participant in CP 6, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  35. 35.

    Conversation between a female (P2) and two male (P1, P4) participants in CP 7, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  36. 36.

    Conversation between a male (P1) and two female (P3, P6) participants in CP 5, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  37. 37.

    Male participant in CP 5, adults aged 18–49, Innsbruck.

  38. 38.

    Male participant in CP 8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  39. 39.

    Conversation between two male participants in CP8, adults aged 50+, Innsbruck.

  40. 40.

    Female participant in CP 2, adults aged 18–49, Vienna.

  41. 41.

    Female participant in CP 4, adults aged 18–49, Vienna.

  42. 42.

    Female participant in CP 4, adults aged 18–49, Vienna.

  43. 43.

    Female participant in CP 1, adults aged 50+, Vienna.

References

  • Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest P-G (2003) Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy 66(1):95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abelson J, Gauvin F-P, MacKinnon MP, Watling J (2006) Primer on public involvement. Document prepared for the Health Council of Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrianantoandro E, Basu S, Karig DK, Weiss R (2006) Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Mol Syst Biol 2(2006):0028

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball P (2004) Synthetic biology: starting from scratch. Nature 431(7009):624–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball P (2010) Making life: a comment on ‘Playing god in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life’ by Henk van den Belt (2009). Nanoethics 4(2):129–132. doi:10.1007/s11569-010-0091-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour R (2008) Doing focus groups. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour R (2014) Introducing qualitative research: a students guide, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • BBSRC, EPSRC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2015

  • Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6(7):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K (2001) Focus groups in social research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner A (2012) The paradox of participation experiments. Sci Technol Hum Values 37(5):506–527. doi:10.1177/0162243911430398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MB (2006) Survey article: citizen panels and the concept of representation. J Polit Philos 14(2):203–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J, Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 10(3):201–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins J (2012) Synthetic biology: bits and pieces come to life. Nature 483(7387):S8–S10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby N, Kelly JM, Schaefer P (1986) Citizens panels: a new approach to citizen participation. Pub Adm Rev 46(2):170–178. doi:10.2307/976169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009) Pictures of synthetic biology: a reflective discussion of the representation of synthetic biology (SB) in the German-language media and by SB experts. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabrock P (2009) Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):47–54. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lorenzo V, Danchin A (2008) Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep 9(9):822–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vriend H (2006) Constructing life. Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. Working document 97, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado A, Lein Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Pub Underst Sci 20(6):826–845. doi:10.1177/0963662510363054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deplazes A, Huppenbauer M (2009) Synthetic organisms and living machines: positioning the products of synthetic biology at the borderline between living and non-living matter. Syst Synth Biol 3(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Die Welt (2009) Nach Analog-Käse nun der Mogel-Schinken. http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article4049225/Nach-Analog-Kaese-nun-der-Mogel-Schinken.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2015

  • Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2012) Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Pub Underst Sci doi:10.1177/0963662512445011

    Google Scholar 

  • Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438(7067):449–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard M (2010) Biosicherheit in der Synthetischen Biologie. Die Unterschiede zur Gentechnik erfordern neue Sicherheitsstandards. Die Politische Meinung 493:17–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard M (2011) Die Synthetische Biologie geht weit über die klassische Gentechnik hinaus. In: Dabrock P, Bölker M, Braun M, Ried J (eds) Was ist Leben – im Zeitalter seiner technischen Machbarkeit? Beiträge zur Ethik der Synthetischen Biologie. Karl Alber, Freiburg, pp 43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/602/01/synbioreportweb.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2013

  • European Group on Ethics (2009) Opinion no. 25—ethics of synthetic biology

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243. doi:10.2307/689860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth, International Center for Technology Assessment, ETC Group (2012) The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/The-Principles-for-the-Oversight-of-Synthetic-Biology-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015

  • Friese S (2012) Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y et al (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? Eurobarometer

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgianna DR, Mayfield SP (2012) Exploiting diversity and synthetic biology for the production of algal biofuels. Nature 488(7411):329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LI, Gill SS (eds) (2010) Insect control: biological and synthetic agents. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimpel JA, Specht EA, Georgianna DR, Mayfield SP (2013) Advances in microalgae engineering and synthetic biology applications for biofuel production. Current Opin Chem Biol 17(3):489–495. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.03.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graur D (2007) Public control could be a nightmare for researchers. Nature 450(7173):1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gschmeidler B, Seiringer A (2012) “Knight in shining armour” or “Frankenstein’s creation”? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media. Pub Underst Sci 21(2):163–173. doi:10.1177/0963662511403876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (1999) Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Sci Technol Hum Values 24(4):451–482. doi:10.1177/016224399902400402

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: a report of findings. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015

  • Hart Research Associates (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and public opinion. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/nano_synbio.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2015

  • Hart Research Associates (2010) Awareness and impressions of synthetic biology: a report of findings. http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/6456. Accessed 16 Sept 2013

  • Hart Research Associates (2013) Awareness and impressions of synthetic biology: a report of findings. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/synbiosurvey2013_0.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015

  • Hommel M (2008) The future of artemisinins: natural, synthetic or recombinant? J Biol 7(10):38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Jensen TE, Jones KE (2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Soc Stud Sci 43(1):118–135. doi:10.1177/0306312712462461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin L, Walker AS, Fu G, Harvey-Samuel T, Dafa’alla T, Miles A, Marubbi T, Granville D, Humphrey-Jones N, O’Connell S, Morrison NI, Alphey L (2013) Engineered female-specific lethality for control of pest lepidoptera. ACS Synth Biol 2:160–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Mandel GN (2009) Risk and Culture: Is Synthetic Biology Different? Harvard law school program on risk regulation research paper no 09-2; Yale Law School, Public law working paper no 190

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Pub Underst Sci 21(2):188–194. doi:10.1177/0963662511434433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keasling J (2009) Synthetic biology in pursuit of inexpensive, effective, anti-malarial drugs. BioSocieties 4(2–3):275–282. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle A (2009) Synthetic biology and biosecurity. EMBO Rep 10(S1):S23–S27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitney R, Freemont P (2012) Synthetic biology—the state of play. FEBS Lett 586(15):2029–2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger N (2012) Synthetic biology: taking a look at a field in the making. Pub Underst Sci 21(2):130–133. doi:10.1177/0963662511426381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger N, Holtz P, Kerbe W, Strasser E, Wagner W (2009) communicating synthetic biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):19–26. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9031-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W (2012) Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Pub Underst Sci 21(2):174–187. doi:10.1177/0963662511400331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA, Casey MA (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz U (2012) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmkuhl M (2011) Die Repräsentation der synthetischen Biologie in der deutschen Presse. Abschlussbericht einer Inhaltsanalyse von 23 deutschen Pressetiteln. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin. http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/lehmkuhl-studie-synthetische-biologie.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2015

  • Liamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: principle and practice. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin AT (2011) Technology assessment 2.0: revamping our approach to emerging technologies. Brooklin Law Rev 76(4):1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris C, Rose N (2010) Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biol 8(11):e1000549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2008) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 10th edn. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • McHughen A (2007) Public perceptions of biotechnology. Biotechnol J 2(9):1105–1111. doi:10.1002/biot.200700071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr A, Raman S (2012) Representing the public in public engagement: the case of the 2008 UK stem cell dialogue. PLoS Biol 10(11):e1001418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanz P, Fritsche M, Isaak A, Hofmann M, Lüdemann M (2010) Verfahren und Methoden der Bürgerbeteiligung. In: Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed) Politik beleben, Bürger beteiligen: Charakteristika neuer Beteiligungsmodelle. Gütersloh, pp 6–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Biotechnology (2009) What’s in a name? Nature Biotechnol 27(12):1071–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navid EL, Einsiedel EF (2012) Synthetic biology in the science café: what have we learned about public engagement? J Sci Commun 11(4):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012) Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Royal Society (2010) Symposium on opportunities and challenges in the emerging field of synthetic biology. Synthesis report

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Engelhard M, Hagen K, Jørgensen RB, Rehbinder E, Schnieke A, Szmulewicz M, Thiele F (2009) The role of means and goals in technology acceptance. A differentiated landscape of public perceptions of pharming. EMBO Rep 10(10):1069–1075. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2009) Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):37–46. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9035-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2013) Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience 63(2):79–89. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson B, Snell S, Bye-Nagel K, Tonidandel S, Heyer L, Campbell AM (2011) Word selection affects perceptions of synthetic biology. J Biol Eng 5(1):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehbinder E, Engelhard M, Hagen K, Jørgensen RB, Pardo-Avellaneda R, Schnieke A, Thiele F (2009) Pharming: promises and risks of biopharmaceuticals derived from genetically modified plants and animals, vol 35. Ethics of science and technology assessment. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ro D-K, Paradise EM, Ouellet M, Fisher KJ, Newman KL, Ndungu JM, Ho KA, Eachus RA, Ham TS, Kirby J, Chang MCY, Withers ST, Shiba Y, Sarpong R, Keasling JD (2006) Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature 440(7086):940–943. doi:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/suppinfo/nature04640_S1.html

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A Typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic biology: public dialogue on synthetic biology. www.raeng.org.uk/synbiodialogue. Accessed 02 Apr 2015

  • Ruder WC, Lu T, Collins JJ (2011) Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science 333(6047):1248–1252. doi:10.1126/science.1206843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCENIHR, SCCS, SCHER (2014) Opinion on synthetic biology I, Definition. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_044.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2014

  • Schmidt M (ed) (2012) Synthetic biology: industrial and environmental applications. Wiley, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M, Torgersen H, Ganguli-Mitra A, Kelle A, Deplazes A, Biller-Andorno N (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 2(1–2):7–17. doi:10.1007/s11693-008-9019-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractrable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert F (2002) Gentechnik - Öffentlichkeit - Demokratie: Der österreichische Gentechnik-Konflikt im internationalen Kontext. Profil-Verlag, München, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert F (2003) Demokratietheoretische Überlegungen zum österreichischen Gentechnik-Konflikt. SWS-Rundschau (1/2003):106–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Service RF (2011) Algae’s second try. Science 333(6047):1238–1239. doi:10.1126/science.333.6047.1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheedy A, MacKinnon MP, Pitre S, Watling J (2008) Handbook on citizen engagement: beyond consultation. Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Ottawa. http://cprn.org/documents/49583_EN.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2013

  • Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Pub Underst Sci 23(1):4–15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294. doi:10.1177/0162243907311265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2012) Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biol 10(1):e1001233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep 10(S1):S18–S22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait J (2012) Adaptive governance of synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 13(7):579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DD, Donnelly CA, Wood RJ, Alphey LS (2000) Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science 287(5462):2474–2476. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgersen H (2009) Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):9–17. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9030-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgersen H, Hampel J (2012) Calling controversy: assessing synthetic biology’s conflict potential. Pub Underst Sci 21(2):134–148. doi:10.1177/0963662510389266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgersen H, Schmidt M (2013) Frames and comparators: how might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? Futures 48(100):44–54. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2011) Guidelines on citizens’ engagement for development management and public governance. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan045265.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2013

  • van den Belt H (2009) Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics 3(3):257–268. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0079-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Wang J, Zhang W, Meldrum DR (2012) Application of synthetic biology in cyanobacteria and algae. Front Microbiol 3 doi:10.3389/fmicb.2012.00344

  • Weber W, Fussenegger M (2009) The impact of synthetic biology on drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 14(19–20):956–963. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2009.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall PJ, Pitera DJ, Lenihan JR, Eng D, Woolard FX, Regentin R, Horning T, Tsuruta H, Melis DJ, Owens A, Fickes S, Diola D, Benjamin KR, Keasling JD, Leavell MD, McPhee DJ, Renninger NS, Newman JD, Paddon CJ (2012) Production of amorphadiene in yeast, and its conversion to dihydroartemisinic acid, precursor to the antimalarial agent artemisinin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(3):E111–E118. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110740109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickson F, Delgado A, Kjolberg KL (2010) Who or what is ‘the public’? Nat Nano 5(11):757–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9(3):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The empirical data used in this study were generated in the framework of work conducted for the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) as partner of ERASynBio. Special thanks go to all participants in the CPs in Vienna and Innsbruck for their interest and willingness to discuss the issue of synthetic biology. I am especially grateful to my former supervisor Herbert Gottweis, who sadly passed away on March 31, 2014. His supervision and advice during data collection and analysis, and feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter were very valuable for me. I am indebted to Ursula Gottweis for her collaboration during script development, participant recruitment, and moderation of the CPs in Vienna and Innsbruck. Special thanks go to the organizers and participants at the International Summer School “Analyzing the Societal Dimensions of Synthetic Biology”, in Berlin, September 15–19, 2014, and to Ingrid Metzler, Katharina T. Paul, and Johannes Starkbaum from the University of Vienna for their inspiring and helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Walburg Steurer

Authors
  1. Walburg Steurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walburg Steurer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Kristin Hagen

  2. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Margret Engelhard

  3. Center for Literary and Cultural Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Georg Toepfer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Steurer, W. (2016). “Some Kind of Genetic Engineering… Only One Step Further”—Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology in Austria. In: Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21087-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21088-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation