Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 432–448 | Cite as

Making big promises come true? Articulating and realizing value in synthetic biology

  • Emma K Frow
Original Article

Abstract

Synthetic biology is an emerging approach to biotechnology that strives to use engineering principles and practices to design and make new organisms. Proponents of synthetic biology have big aspirations for this field, citing potential for an industrial revolution in biotechnology. This article is concerned with how value is being negotiated and constituted through practice in synthetic biology – through the promises being made, through the objects and products being produced, through the initiatives and institutions being established, and through the work practices and justificatory strategies of synthetic biologists. In particular, I focus on negotiations surrounding the making, use and circulation of BioBrick™ standard biological parts. BioBricks are presented as tools that will make genetic engineering more efficient and reliable, and are accompanied by a particular imagination of innovation and value creation in synthetic biology. But exploring valuation practices in action reveals a number of sites of ambivalence and contestation over the BioBrick approach to synthetic biology. Through a series of vignettes, I show how these negotiations over the promises and practices surrounding BioBricks are configuring the epistemic foundations and design space of the field, and are helping to define what value means in synthetic biology.

Keywords

biocapital BioBricks moral economy standards synthetic biology value 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the researchers in the synthetic biology community who have been and continue to be so generous with their time and insights, during both formal interviews and informal conversations. Versions of this article have been presented at the ‘Making it Big’ workshop at the University of Exeter (March 2011), at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (October 2010) and at the University of Chicago (November 2011), and in particular I would like to thank Gail Davies, Michael Fisch, Sabina Leonelli and Kaushik Sunder Rajan for their constructive feedback. My attendance at meetings and workshops has been supported through funding from the UK Synthetic Biology Standards Network (BB/F018746/1) and the ESRC Genomics Forum at the University of Edinburgh.

References

  1. Agapakis, C.M. (2011) Biological design principles for synthetic biology. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Agapakis, C.M. and Silver, P.A. (2009) Synthetic biology: Exploring and exploiting genetic modularity through the design of novel biological networks. Molecular BioSystems 5 (7): 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkin, A. (2008) Setting the standard in synthetic biology. Nature Biotechnology 26 (7): 771–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arkin, A. and Endy, D. (1999) A standard parts list for biological circuitry. DARPA research proposal, available at DSpace, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/29794.
  5. Billings, L. and Endy, D. (2008) Synthetic biology. SEED Magazine Cribsheet #16. http://seedmagazine.com/images/uploads/16cribsheet.pdf.
  6. Brown, N. (2013) Contradictions of value: Between use and exchange in cord blood bioeconomy. Sociology of Health & Illness 35 (1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvert, J. (2008) The commodification of emergence: Systems biology, synthetic biology and intellectual property. BioSocieties 3 (4): 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campos, L. (2010) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra and H. de Vriend (eds.) Synthetic Biology: The Technoscience and its Societal Consequences. London: Springer, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar
  9. Campos, L. (2012) The BioBrick™ road. BioSocieties 7 (2): 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canton, B., Labno, A. and Endy, D. (2008) Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nature Biotechnology 26 (7): 787–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, M. (2008) Life as Surplus: Biotechnology & Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, G., Frow, E. and Leonelli, S. (2013) Bigger, faster, better? Rhetorics and practices of large-scale research in contemporary bioscience. BioSocieties, advance online publication 7 October, doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.26.Google Scholar
  13. Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C.-F., Lee, F. and Woolgar, S. (in preparation) On the omnipresence, diversity, and elusiveness of values in the life sciences. In: I. Dussauge, C.-F. Helgesson and F. Lee (eds.) Value Practices in the Life Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, T., Adie, T. and Baldwin, G.S. (2011) DNA assembly for synthetic biology: From parts to pathways and beyond. Integrative Biology 3 (2): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endy, D. (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksson, E. and Webster, A. (2008) Standardizing the unknown: Practicable pluripotency as doable futures. Science as Culture 17 (1): 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujimura, J.H. (1987) Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science 17 (2): 257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, D.G., Young, L., Chuang, R.-Y., Venter, J.C., Hutchison, C.A. and Smith, H.O. (2009) Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nature Methods 6 (5): 343–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartwell, L.H., Hopfield, J.J., Leibler, S. and Murray, A.W. (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402 (6761): C47–C52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Heinemann, M. and Panke, S. (2006) Synthetic biology – Putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 22 (22): 2790–2799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helmreich, S. (2008) Species of biocapital. Science as Culture 17 (4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan, K. and Lynch, M. (1992) The sociology of a genetic engineering technique: Ritual and rationality in the performance of the ‘plasmid prep’. In: Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura (eds.) The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 77–114.Google Scholar
  25. Kelty, C.M. (2012) This is not an article: Model organism newsletters and the question of ‘open science’. BioSocieties 7 (2): 140–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitney, R. (2009) A third industrial revolution. integrative biology 1 (2): 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knight, T. (2002) DARPA BioComp Plasmid Distribution 1.00 of Standard Biobrick Components. BioBricks Foundation RFC7; DSpace, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/21167.
  28. Knight, T. (2007) Draft Standard for BioBrick Biological Parts. BioBricks Foundation RFC10; DSpace, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45138.
  29. Knight, T., Rettberg, R., Chan, L., Endy, D., Shetty, R. and Che, A. (2003) Idempotent Vector Design for the Standard Assembly of Biobricks. BioBricks Foundation RFC9, http://openwetware.org/images/b/bd/BBFRFC9.pdf.
  30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kohler, R.E. (1994) Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kwok, R. (2009) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463 (7279): 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landecker, H. (2007) Culturing Life: How Cells Became Techologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lezaun, J. (2013) The escalating politics of Big Biology. BioSocieties, advance online publication 21 October, doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.30.Google Scholar
  35. Lim, W.A. (2010) Designing customized cell signalling circuits. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 11 (6): 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackenzie, A. (2010) Design in synthetic biology. BioSocieties 5 (2): 180–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackenzie, A. et al (2013) Classifying, constructing, and identifying life: Standards as transformations of the biological. Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (5): 701–722.Google Scholar
  38. Molyneux-Hodgson, S. and Meyer, M. (2009) Tales of emergence: Synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 4 (2–3): 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muniesa, F. (2012) A flank movement in the understanding of valuation. The Sociological Review 59 (s2): 24–38.Google Scholar
  40. National Academies of Science (2009) A New Biology for the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. O’Connell, J. (1993) Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science 23 (1): 129–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Malley, M., Powell, A., Davies, J. and Calvert, J. (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 30 (1): 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pauly, P.J. (1987) Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Peccoud, J. et al (2008) Targeted development of registries of biological parts. Plos One 3 (7): e2671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pottage, A. (2006) Too much ownership: Bio-prospecting in the age of synthetic biology. BioSocieties 1 (2): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Purnick, P.E.M. and Weiss, R. (2009) The second wave of synthetic biology: From modules to systems. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10 (6): 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rai, A. and Boyle, J. (2007) Synthetic biology: Caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. Plos Biology 5 (3): e58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ro, D.-K. et al (2006) Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature 440 (7086): 940–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmidt, M. (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: A challenge to biosafety. Systems & Synthetic Biology 2 (1–2): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Service, R.F. (2011) Algae’s second try. Science 333 (6047): 1238–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shetty, R.P., Endy, D. and Knight, T.F. (2008) Engineering BioBrick vectors from BioBrick parts. Journal of Biological Engineering 2: 5, doi:10.1186/1754-1611-2-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sunder Rajan, K. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma K Frow
    • 1
  1. 1.Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, The University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations