This article locates the beginnings of a synthetic biology network and thereby probes the formation of a potential disciplinary community. We consider the ways that ideas of community are mobilized, both by scientists and policy-makers in building an agenda for new forms of knowledge work, and by social scientists as an analytical device to understand new formations for knowledge production. As participants in, and analysts of, a network in synthetic biology, we describe our current understanding of synthetic biology by telling four tales of community making. The first tale tells of the mobilization of synthetic biology within a European context. The second tale describes the approach to synthetic biology community formation in the UK. The third narrates the creation of an institutionally based, funded ‘network in synthetic biology’. The final tale de-localizes community-making efforts by focussing on ‘devices’ that make communities. In tying together these tales, our analysis suggests that the potential community can be understood in terms of ‘movements’—the (re)orientation and enrolment of people, stories, disciplines and policies; and of ‘stickiness’—the objects and glues that begin to bind together the various constitutive elements of community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
1 All the quotations in this section are from the unpaged workshop report (BBSRC, 2007).
2 Sand-pits are a kind of ‘close encounter’ and brainstorming approach—the rationale being that if you put people in close proximity to each other, and structure their activity over an intense period of time, you will generate a collective vision and/or agenda and/or project.
3 Perhaps this is a key difference between synthetic biology and other communities: the fact that the social sciences are posited as not only a legitimate but also a constitutive element of the community. This ‘upstream’ involvement of social scientists is commonly explained by the need to avoid controversies such as those around genetically modified organisms. Hence, it seems to us that, like other emerging communities, the synthetic biology community mobilizes hopes, expectations and promises, but unlike other communities, it has to a certain degree internalized a prominent fear and is thus institutionalizing and policing the involvement of social science in a rather novel way.
4 Also worthy of being mentioned is the first synbiosafe conference, an e-conference which lasted about a month and focused on the ethical, safety, public, etc. issues arising with synthetic biology.
5 Felt (1993: 375) lists six ingredients allowing the construction of a scientific success story: ‘political and economic interest; the flair of “little” science; the presence of hero scientists; the possibility of staging an international race; the absence of obvious risk; and, finally, the story's role as a counterbalance to political dissatisfaction’.
6 Some authors have argued that ‘metaphors begin to emerge, it seems, quite specifically in order to provide suitable analogies for the representation of the inner workings of synthetic biology’ (Balmer and Herreman, 2009: 221) and that there is a shift from literary metaphors (i.e. ‘the book of life’) to computational metaphors (2009: 231).
Andler D., Barthelme S., Beckert B., Blumel C., Coenen C., Fleischer T. et al. (2007). ‘Converging technologies’ and the social sciences and humanities—An analysis of critical issues and a suggestion for a future research agenda. Final Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation, Unpublished.
Anonymous (2008). Beyond the genome: The challenge of synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 3(1), 3–20.
Balmer A., & Herreman C. (2009). Craig Venter and the re-programming of life: How metaphors shape and perform ethical discourses in the media presentation of synthetic biology. In Nerlich B. Elliott R., & Larson B. (Eds), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions, 219–234. London: Ashgate.
Balmer A., & Martin P. (2008). Synthetic biology: Social and ethical challenges. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham.
BBSRC (2007). Synthetic biology workshop. Report of a workshop at Alexandra House, Wroughton, Wiltshire, 8–9 February, unpublished.
BBSRC (2008a) Synthetic Biology Networks launch document. URL (accessed April 2009): www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/corporate/synthetic_biology.pdf
BBSRC (2008b). New projects to raise UK profile in Synthetic Biology, press release, 29 May, URL (accessed October 2008): www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2008/080529_synthetic_biology.html
Becker H. (1986). Doing things together: Selected papers. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.
Benner S.A., & Sismour A.M. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Review Genetics, 6, July, 533–543.
Brown N. (2003). Hope against hype: Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.
Callon M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Law J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 196–233. London: Routledge.
Calvert J. (2008). The commodification of emergence: Systems biology, synthetic biology and intellectual property. BioSocieties, 3, 383–398.
Calvert J., & Martin P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.
Coenen C. (2008). Konvergierende Technologien und Wissenschaften. Der Stand der Debatte und politischen Aktivitaeten zu ‘Converging Technologies’. Hintergrundpapier Nr. 16. Berlin: TAB.
Collins H.M. (2006). Conferences as knowledge makers. Paper presented at the 4S conference ‘Silence, Suffering and Survival’, Vancouver, 1–5 November.
Collins H.M., & Evans R.J. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: U Chicago Press.
Collins P., & Pontikakis D. (2006). Innovation systems in the European periphery: The policy approaches of Ireland and Greece. Science and Public Policy, 33, 757–769.
Conway J.F. (1992). Physics and the rise of scientific research in Canada by Yves Gingras. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 17, 224–226.
Dubois M. (1999). Introduction à la sociologie des sciences et des connaissances scientifiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Dupre J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Endy D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438, 24 November, 449–453.
European Communities (2005) Synthetic biology: Applying engineering to biology. Report of a NEST high-level expert group. Luxembourg: European Communities.
Felt U. (1993). Fabricating scientific success stories. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 375–390.
Fujimura J.H. (2000). Transnational genomics in Japan: Transgressing the boundary between the ‘modern/West’ and the ‘pre-modern/East’. In Reid R., & Traweek S. (Eds), Cultural Studies of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 71–92. New York: Routledge.
Galison P.L., & Stump D.J. (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford UP.
Gingras Y. (1991). Physics and the rise of scientific research in Canada, trans. P. Keating . Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP.
Greener M. (2008). Is the grass greener on the other side? Encouraging the development of synthetic biology in Europe. EMBO Reports, 9, 835–837.
Hacking I. (1983). Representing and intervening—Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Hedgecoe A.M. (2003). Terminology and the construction of scientific disciplines: The case of pharmacogenomics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 513–537.
Hetherington K. (1997). In place of geometry: The materiality of place. In Hetherington K., & Munro R. (Eds), Ideas of difference: Social spaces and the labour of division, 183–199. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodgson S.M. (2006). Narrating community: History and absence in scientific texts. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 31, 175–188.
Hodgson S.M., & Irving Z. (2007). Policy and its exploration. In Hodgson S., & Irving Z. (Eds.), Policy reconsidered: Meanings, politics and practices, 1–18, Bristol: Policy Press.
Knorr-Cetina K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Lamb R., & Davidson E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. The Information Society, 21, 1–24.
Latour B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Latour B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Lave J., & Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Law J. (1986). On the methods of long distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In Law J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 234–263. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lentzos F., Bennett G., Boeke J., Endy D., & Rabinow P. (2008). Visions and challenges in redesigning life. BioSocieties, 3, 311–323.
M.A. (multiple authors) (2007). Unpublished network proposal to BBSRC.
Marcus G.E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Meyer M. (2008). On the boundaries and partial connections between amateurs and professionals. Museum and Society, 6, 38–53.
Meyer M. (2007). Increasing the frame: Interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and representativity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 203–212.
Mody C.M. (2006). Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technology and Culture, 47, 56–80.
Molyneux-Hodgson S., & Facer K. (2003). The textbook as cultural artefact: Reproducing the culture of science. In Sutherland R., Claxton G., & Pollard A. (Eds.), Learning and teaching: Where worldviews meet, 153–74. Stoke: Trentham.
O'Malley M.A., Powell A., Davies J.F., & Calvert J. (2007) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology, BioEssays, 30(19): 57–65.
Pickering A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. London: U Chicago Press.
Pinch T., & Bijker W. (1992). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or, How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker W., & Law J. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, 17–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pottage A. (2006). Too much ownership: Bio-prospecting in the age of synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 1, 137–158.
Roco M.C., & Bainbridge W.S. (Eds.) (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Royal Society (2007) Call for views: Synthetic biology, June. URL (accessed May 2009): royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4297
Simpson B., & Carroll B. (2008). Re-viewing ‘role’ in processes of identity construction. Organization, 15, 29–50.
Vinck D. (1999). Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. Revue française de sociologie, 40, 385–414.
Wenger E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225–246.
We would like to thank participants in one of the BBSRC-funded Network in Synthetic Biology events for their cooperation, in particular our interview respondents R1, R2 and R3. Thanks also to Dave Phillips for his comments on an earlier draft and to three anonymous referees.
About this article
Cite this article
Molyneux-Hodgson, S., Meyer, M. Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making. BioSocieties 4, 129–145 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990019
- Community-making Devices
- Scientific Communities
- Synthetic Biology