Abstract
Like other technological fields before it, synthetic biology (SB) has been ascribed different definitions by different scholars (Pauwels 2013; Smith 2013; Wang et al. 2013). One commonly used definition of SB is the extraction of living parts for organisms that are then inserted into other organisms to create a “new” organism with parts from the donor and recipient (Benner and Sismour 2005). Synthetic biology has also been described as “the use of computer assisted, biological engineering to design and construct new synthetic biological part” (Hoffman and Newman 2012). Others like the National Science Foundation and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have noted that synthetic biology is the identification and application of biology in the design of biological parts and systems for use in the creation or redesign of natural biological systems for useful purposes (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 2009).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007.
Benner, S. A., & Sismour, A. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews: Genetics, 6(7), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1637.
Charpentier, M., & Oldroyd, G. (2010). How close are we to nitrogen-fixing cereals? Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 13(5), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.08.003.
Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Hu, Q. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(7), 1573–1585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5.
Cummings, C., & Kuzma, J. (2017). Societal Risk Evaluation Scheme (SRES): Scenario-based multi-criteria evaluation of synthetic biology applications. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168564.
DeSesso, J. M., & Watson, R. E. (2006). The case for integrating low dose, beneficial responses into US EPA risk assessments. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 25(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1191/0960327106ht578oa.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and National Science Foundation. (2009). New directions in synthetic biology: A call for participants to take part in a five-day sandpit to look for innovative ways to explore future developments in synthetic biology. Warrenton, VA: Airlie Conference Center.
Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669.
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
Gutmann, A. (2011). The ethics of synthetic biology: Guiding principles for emerging technologies. The Hastings Center Report, 41(4), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-146X.2011.tb00118.x.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Risk management as a postnormal science2. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01311.x.
Hoffman, E., & Newman, S. (2012). Big promises backed by bad theory. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, 32(10), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/gen.32.10.01.
International Risk Governance Council. (2015). Guidelines for emerging risk governance. Switzerland: Lausanne.
Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2006). Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 24(1), 149–172.
Kaneko, T., Nakamura, Y., Sato, S., Asamizu, E., Kato, T., Sasamoto, S., et al. (2000). Complete genome structure of the nitrogen-fixing symbiotic bacterium mesorhizobium loti. DNA Research, 7(6), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/7.6.331.
Kuzma, J., Paradise, J., Ramachandran, G., Kim, J., Kokotovich, A., & Wolf, S. M. (2008b). An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1197–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x.
Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., & Kokotovich, A. (2008a). Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1081–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x.
Kuzma, J., & Tanji, T. (2010). Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options. Regulation & Governance, 4(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x.
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Macnaghten, P. (2008). Nanotechnology, risk and upstream public engagement. Geography, 93(2), 108–113.
Mandel, G. N., & Marchant, G. E. (2014). The living regulatory challenges of synthetic biology. Iowa Law Review, 100(1), 155–200.
Miles, R. E., Jr. (1978). The origin and meaning of Miles’ Law. Public Administration Review, 38(5), 399–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/975497.
Morgan, K. (2005). Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society forRisk Analysis, 25(6), 1621–1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00681.x.
Morgan, M. G. (2014). Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(20), 7176–7184. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319946111.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Preparing for future products of biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council Staff. (1993). Issues in risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Neumann, R., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011525.
Oldroyd, G. E., & Dixon, R. (2014). Biotechnological solutions to the nitrogen problem. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 26, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.08.006.
Otway, H., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1992). Expert judgment in risk analysis and management: Process, context, and pitfalls. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01310.x.
Patton, M. Q. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pauwels, E. (2013). Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience, 63(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.4.
Powell, M. C. (2007). New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570701306872.
Quay, R. (2010). Anticipatory governance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.508428.
Santi, C., Bogusz, D., & Franche, C. (2013). Biological nitrogen fixation in non-legume plants. Annals of Botany, 111(5), 743–767. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct048.
Smith, K. (2013). Synthetic biology: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 27(8), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12050.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Stirling, A. (2008). Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.011.
Swor, T., & Canter, L. (2011). Promoting environmental sustainability via an expert elicitation process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(5), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.014.
Tait, J. (2012). Adaptive governance of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 13(7), 579–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.76.
Trump, B. D., Cegan, J., Wells, E., Poinsatte-Jones, K., Rycroft, T., Warner, C., et al. (2019). Co-evolution of physical and social sciences in synthetic biology. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 39(3), 351–365.
Trump, B. D., Cegan, J. C., Wells, E., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2018b). A critical juncture for synthetic biology: Lessons from nanotechnology could inform public discourse and further development of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 19(7), e46153. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846153.
Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., & Linkov, I. (2018a). A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12142.
Trump, B. D. (2017). Synthetic biology regulation and governance: Lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore. Health Policy, 121(11), 1139–1146.
Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(70)90161-7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). TSCA biotechnology notifications, FY 1998 to present. Retrieved 03/02, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/submiss.htm
Valdez, R., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C., & Peterson, N. (2019). Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(2), 1–21.
Valimaa, J. (1998). Culture and identity in higher education research. Higher Education, 36(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003248918874.
Wang, X., Yang, J., Chen, L., Wang, J., Cheng, Q., Dixon, R., & Wang, Y. (2013). Using synthetic biology to distinguish and overcome regulatory and functional barriers related to nitrogen fixation. PLoS One, 8(7), e68677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068677.
Wareham, C., & Nardini, C. (2015). Policy on synthetic biology: Deliberation, probability, and the precautionary paradox. Bioethics, 29(2), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12068.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ndoh, C., Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J. (2020). The Role of Expert Disciplinary Cultures in Assessing Risks and Benefits of Synthetic Biology. In: Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., Linkov, I. (eds) Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance. Risk, Systems and Decisions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27263-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27264-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)