Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Synthetic Biology Analysed pp 127–170Cite as

Synthetic Biology: Public Perceptions of an Emergent Field

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment ((ETHICSSCI,volume 44))

Abstract

We analyze some of the issues that synthetic biology raises for the social sciences within the “public perceptions of science” framework. The changing roles of public perceptions in policy making are described in relation with changes in the institutional and cultural contexts of science. We take a closer look at the available empirical evidence about public views on synthetic biology against the background of what is known about public perceptions of biotechnology more generally. Many vectors influence public attitudes to biotechnology, notably risk perceptions, tradeoffs between goals and means, ethical views, and trust in science and regulatory institutions. Attitudes are also associated with frames, symbols and worldviews. One of the central worldviews that affects subsets of the life sciences is the current vision of nature: many people are aware of problematic aspects of economic growth that makes intensive use of science and technology, and there is therefore sensitivity to scientific progress that further challenges the boundaries of “natural” processes and objects. Synthetic biology has components in potential conflict with the public’s preference for “naturalness” in many areas, although this is at present dormant due to the low salience of synthetic biology in the media and public.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Felix Thiele’s chapter “The Ethical Evaluation of Pharming”, in Rehbinder et al. (2009), pp. 179–200, and the much earlier contribution by Birnbacher (1999) give more scope to social science studies in the framing of bioethical questions and objects.

  2. 2.

    Frames are one of the two main components of “schema theories” in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence (the other is “script”), and were introduced by computer scientist Marvin Minsky to denote the representation and the structure of a given piece of knowledge. Frames store an object in memory as a list of its most typical attributes, and when an individual hears, sees or reads something about the object, he/she “recalls” these attributes en bloc.

  3. 3.

    For a brief history and background of the report and the Public Understanding of Science field, as related by the scientist who chaired the ad hoc group appointed by the Royal Society, see Bodmer (2010).

  4. 4.

    On the varieties of engagement, see Rowe and Frewer (2005).

  5. 5.

    See methodological considerations about the evaluation of public participation forms in science policies in Rowe et al. (2004), Rowe and Frewer (2000, 2004), Levitt et al. (2005), and Nielsen et al. (2011).

  6. 6.

    A sample of this work can be found in Bauer et al. (2012).

  7. 7.

    For an early formulation of the “cognitive miser” model (the use of shortcuts and heuristics to overcome limitations in information processing), see Taylor (1981). On holistic and intuitive cognitive processing, see Gigerenzer (2007).

  8. 8.

    On this point of characterizing the substantive content of evaluations and not only their sign (positive, negative), see Pardo and Calvo (2006a).

  9. 9.

    For a review of this critique, see Heise (2004).

  10. 10.

    On the concept of “social mindscape” see Zerubavel (1997).

  11. 11.

    On the emergence of the role of scientist and the process of institutionalization of science, see Ben-David (1984).

  12. 12.

    Cultural historian Leo Marx has attributed the loss of collective optimism and the erosion in the narrative of progress to awareness of “the grave damage that modern industrial societies inflict upon the global environment” (see Marx 2001).

  13. 13.

    For the case of Germany, characterized both by a high appreciation of science and also of nature and environmental values, see Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach, Kein Fortschrittspessimismus. Eine Dokumentation des Beitrags von Dr. Thomas Petersen in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung Nr. 115 vom 18. Mai 2011, available at http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/uploads/tx_reportsndocs/Mai11_Fortschritt.pdf, accessed 22 July 2015.

  14. 14.

    Information was gathered through a survey of 21,000 people aged 18 and over in 10 European Union countries (Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic and Poland), Russia, Japan, the USA and Mexico. Fieldwork was conducted by Ipsos and completed in January 2013. Sample size of 1,500 cases in each country. The design and analysis of the study are the work of R. Pardo, M. Szmulewicz, J. Maquet and C. Perera at the BBVA Foundation Department of Social Studies and Public Opinion.

  15. 15.

    This vision is already present in the Bible (Genesis chapter 1–28.29) and has been identified as a cultural component of the contemporary ecological crisis; see L. White, Jr’ influential paper “The historical roots of our ecological crisis” (1967).

  16. 16.

    For a general picture of the historical link between science development (including ecology) and the accompanying narrative and the exploitation of new natural resources and areas of the planet, see Bowler and Morus (2005), pp. 213–236.

  17. 17.

    In chapter two of this book it is argued that, in the case of synthetic biology, these specific attributes go beyond genetic engineering. Attributes include the depth of intervention that leads to a new dimension of uncertainty, the orthogonality that causes a stepwise genetic separation of synthetic organisms from natural organisms and the claim to create life with its ontological impact.

  18. 18.

    For example, the inclusion in a battery of 10 items measuring general attitudes to science of just one item or statement capturing the effects of science and technology on armaments could lower the global score of positive attitudes (see Pardo and Calvo 2002).

  19. 19.

    Gerald Holton has noted that “science has always had (…) a metaphoric function—that is, it generates an important part of a whole culture’s symbolic vocabulary and provides some of the metaphysical bases and philosophical orientations of our ideology. (…) Ideas emerging from science are, and will continue to be as they have been since the seventeenth century, a central part of modern culture—through pure thought, through practical power, and through metaphoric influence” (Holton 1995, p. 129).

  20. 20.

    One particularly influential preconception is “the generally accepted thema of the unlimited possibility of doing science, the belief that nature is, in principle, fully knowable” (Holton 1988, p. 18). Analysis and synthesis are also cultural presuppositions: “High on the list of achievements our culture has traditionally defined as best are grand, synoptic, and unifying works usually characterized as ‘syntheses’ of the thinking of a period or a field” (Holton 1978, p. 111).

  21. 21.

    Science historian Thomas P. Hugues has characterized the relationship between science and technology with American society during the period 1870-1970 as a “century of invention and technological enthusiasm”, shared both by the scientific community and technologists, entrepreneurs, the government and society at large (Hugues 2004).

  22. 22.

    Probably the following characterization is no longer valid, but a more relaxed one is still at work for many areas of public opinion and culture: “We tend to think of the ‘country’—the particular nation-state we live in—as the maximal social unit not only of economic and political life, but also of social organization and culture, the ‘way of life’ we are part of. The nation-state has such special importance that many of us rarely think beyond it […]”, (Worsley 1987, p. 50).

  23. 23.

    Biotechnology as a frame of reference for the analysis of the many dimensions of synthetic biology is a constant in the literature. For a defense of the differences between them regarding the ethical component, see Boldt and Müller (2008). For these authors, the ethical novelty of synthetic biology is the result of the fundamental discontinuity entailed by the transition from “manipulatio” to “creatio”: “In synthetic biology, the aim is not to amend an organism with a certain quantity of altered characteristics (that is, to manipulate); instead, it is to equip a completely unqualified organism with a new quality of being (that is, to create a new form of life). […] Seen from the perspective of synthetic biology, nature is a blank space to be filled with whatever we wish.” (p. 388).

  24. 24.

    For a study of national differences in public funding in Europe of both synthetic biology and ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Issues) linked to synthetic biology, see Pei et al. (2011).

  25. 25.

    Although references are made in these pages to attitudes and views on synthetic biology as a whole, this is just shorthand for attitudes to specific synthetic biology applications. It is highly unlikely that most individuals will form or hold attitudes towards a new scientific field as such, unless the field becomes linked and identified with an overarching and public narrative (such as “regenesis”, “creating life”). At the time of this writing, the expression “synthetic biology” for the large majority of people is not associated with strong traits, attributes or images, in contrast with genetic engineering and, particularly, of cloning.

  26. 26.

    For a number of interesting findings apropos of the communication of synthetic biology, see Kronberger et al. (2009).

  27. 27.

    For a review of ELSI reports on synthetic biology, see Torgersen (2009).

  28. 28.

    Craig Venter quoted in The Guardian on Thursday 20 May 2010, under the title “Craig Venter creates synthetic life form”. See also, Church and Regis, Regenesis (2012).

  29. 29.

    See ETC Group (2007). Joachim Boldt and Oliver Müller have alerted synthetic biology researchers to the risks of using metaphors of the type mentioned that change the notion of life and blur the boundaries between organisms and artifacts (see Boldt and Müller 2008, p. 388), activating images of Faust or Frankenstein. See also the complementary letter to the editor under the title “Of Newtons and heretics” by Ganguli-Mitra et al. (2009), which presents the results of a survey conducted by its authors among 20 European synthetic biology researchers, showing that most of them had a narrow and traditional vision of the ethical problems posed by the field (mainly, issues of biosafety and biosecurity), virtually none of them connected to its larger purpose.

  30. 30.

    According to the latest survey results reviewed by Pauwels (2013), “despite their limited awareness of synthetic biology, 7 in 10 respondents reported some sense or idea about what they think synthetic biology involves, and their top of mind perceptions were focused mainly on the concept that it is human-made or artificial (30 %). Fully 12 % said that it has something to do with genetic engineering or with modifying or altering plants, crops, and cells. Smaller percentages of the respondents mentioned science or biology (6 %); cloning (6 %); machines, drugs, or advancements in medical research (5 %); or synthetic materials and chemicals (5 %). Nearly a third (29 %) of the respondents had no sense of synthetic biology or did not offer a response.” (Pauwels 2013, p. 82).

  31. 31.

    For interpretations of “the playing God argument” decoupled from a religious interpretation, see Peters (2006), section, “The Problem of Scientists Playing God”, pp. 382–384); van den Belt (2009); and Lentzos et al. (2012), section “’Playing God’ and Challenging the Organism/Machine Divide”, pp. 139–142).

  32. 32.

    Of the 32 countries, only the 27 belonging to the EU in 2010 have been included in the analysis that follows.

  33. 33.

    Political scientist George F. Bishop has referred to the “phantom public” when pollsters insist on measuring attitudes to objects far removed from people’s attention and understanding, issues that at a particular time are not yet part of public opinion. See the chapter “Illusory Opinions on Public Affairs” (Bishop 2005, pp. 19–46).

  34. 34.

    For an overview, see the second part of Acevedo-Rocha (2016).

  35. 35.

    For an overview, see Zhang et al. (2011).

  36. 36.

    For a systematic and enlightening analysis of the naturalness concept, see Siipi (2005).

  37. 37.

    Dabrock in his insightful paper “Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge” (2009), in our view misses the point that “playing God” could and does have a non-religious interpretation, even if this cultural angle has some echoes of its religious origin. In contrast, van den Belt, in his “Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life” (2009) offers a cogent secular meaning of that notion.

References

  • Acevedo-Rocha CG (2016) The synthetic nature of biology. In: Hagen K, Engelhard M, Toepfer G (eds) Ambivalences of creating life. Societal and philosophical dimensions of synthetic biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smitz I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 17:35–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16:79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Gaskell G (2002) Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Shukla R, Allum N (eds) (2012) The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David J (1984) The scientist’s role in society. A comparative study. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher D (1999) Ethics and social science: what kind of cooperation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 2:319–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop GF (2005) The illusion of public opinion. Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodmer W (2010) The public understanding of science, the BA, the royal society and COPUS. Notes Rec R Soc. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2010.0035

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner A, Menz W (2005) Alternative Rationalitäten? Technikbewertung durch Laien und Experten am Beispiel der Biomedizin. In: Bora A, Decker M, Grunwald A, Renn O (eds) Technik in einer fragilen Welt. Die Rolle der Technikfolgenabschätzung, edition sigma, Berlin, pp 383–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldt J, Müller O (2008) Newtons of the leaves of grass. Nat Biotechnol 26:387–389. doi:10.1038/nbt0408-387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler PJ, Morus IR (2005) Making modern science. A historical survey. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Check E (2006) Synthetic biologists try to calm fears. Nature 441:388–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church G, Regis E (2012) Regenesis. How synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J Nanoparticle Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COM (Commission of the European Communities) (2001) European governance. A White Paper. COM (2001) 428 final, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Daamen DDL, Van der Lans IA, Midden CJH (1990) Cognitive structures in the perception of modern technologies. Sci Technol Hum Values 15:202–225. doi:10.1177/016224399001500203

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragojlovic N, Einsiedel E (2013) Framing synthetic biology. Sci Commun 35:547–571. doi:10.1177/1075547012470707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel E (2005) In the Public Eye: The Early Landscape of Nanotechnology among Canadian and US Publics. AZoNano Online J Nanotechnol 1:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel E, Kamara MW, Boy D, et al. (2006) The coming of age of public participation. In: Gaskell G, Bauer MW (eds) Genomics and society: legal, ethical and social dimensions. Earthscan, London, pp 95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology. Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1 on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2015

  • European Commission (2011) towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2777/58723

  • European Commission (2012) Ethical and regulatory challenges to science and research policy at the global level. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2777/35203

  • Evans G, Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Underst Sci 4:57–74. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganguli-Mitra A, Schmidt M, Torgersen H, Deplazes A, Biller-Andorno N (2009) Of Newtons and heretics. Nat Biotechnol 27:321–322. doi:10.1038/nbt0409-321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel MS, Endy D, Epstein GL, Friedman RM (2007) Synthetic genomics: options for governance. The J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. A report to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N, Quintanilha A, Rammer A, Revuelta G, Stoneman P, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010 winds of change? A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G (2007) Gut feelings. The intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H (2008) Participation and the new governance of life. Biosocieties 3:265–286. doi:10.1017/S1745855208006194

    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. Public Underst Sci 21:163–173. doi:10.1177/0963662511403876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hård M, Jamison A (1988) The Intellectual Appropriation of Technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: a report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Heise UK (2004) Science, Technology, and Postmodernism. In: Connor S (ed) Cambridge companion to postmodernism. CUP, Cambridge, pp 136–167

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton G (1995) Einstein, history, and other passions. American Institute of Physics, Woodbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton G (1988) Thematic origins of scientific thought. Kepler to Einstein. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton G (1978) The scientific imagination. Case studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and society. The Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugues TP (2004) American genesis, 2nd edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce S, Mazza A-M, Kendall S (Rapporteurs), Committee on science, technology, and law; policy and global affairs; Board on life sciences; division on earth and life sciences; National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council (2013) Positioning synthetic biology to meet the challenges of the 21st century: summary report of a six academies symposium series. National Academies Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser M (2012) Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none? Public Underst Sci 21:188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller EF (1995) Refiguring life. Metaphors of twentieth-century biology. Columbia University Press, New York

    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 3:19–26. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9031-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen J, Gjerris M, Sandøe P (2006) After Dolly—ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65:992–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentzos F, Cockerton C, Finlay S, Hamilton A, Zhang J, Rose N (2012) The societal impact of synthetic biology. In: Freemont PS, Kitney RI (eds) Synthetic biology: a primer. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 131–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt M, Weiner K, Goodacre J (2005) Gene Week: a novel way of consulting the public. Public Underst Sci 14:67–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévy-Leblond J (1992) About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public Underst Sci 1:17–21. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie H, Tait J (2011) Guidelines for appropriate risk governance of synthetic biology. Int Risk Gov Counc Policy Br. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/irgc_SB_final_07jan_web.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2014

  • Marris C (2014) The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Sci Cult 24:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SM, Lucas KV, Terrell S (2006) From understanding to action. Community-based options for improving safety and security in synthetic biology. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx L (1988) The pilot and the passenger: essays on literature, technology, and culture in the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx L (2001) The domination of nature and the redefinition of progress. In: Marx L, Mazlish B (eds) Progress. Fact or illusion. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 201–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur A (1981) The dynamics of technical controversy. Communications Press Inc, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JD, Pardo R (2000) Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: a comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In: Dierkes M, von Grote C (eds) Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 131–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F (1997) Public perceptions of science and technology. A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Fundación BBV-Chicago Academy of Sciences, Bilbao

    Google Scholar 

  • Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J (2004) Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Heal Care Philos 7:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen AP, Lassen J, Sandøe P (2011) Public participation: democratic ideal or pragmatic tool? The cases of GM foods and functional foods. Public Underst Sci 20:163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris P (1999) Critical citizens. Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nye JSJ, Zelikow PD, King DC (1997) Why people don’t trust government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R (2012) Worldviews, frames, trust and perceptions of stem cells across Europe. In: Bauer MW, Shukla R, Allum N (eds) The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe. Routledge, New York, pp 353–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Calvo F (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis. Public Underst Sci 11:155–195. doi:10.1177/096366202129084859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Calvo F (2006a) Mapping perceptions of science in end-of-century Europe. Sci Commun 28:3–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Calvo F (2006b) Are Europeans really antagonistic to biotech? Nat Biotechnol 24:393–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Calvo F (2008) Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Sci Commun 30:8–47

    Article  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 10:1069–1075. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo R, Midden C, Miller JD (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotechnol 98:9–24

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei L, Gaisser S, Schmidt M (2011) Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organisations. Public Underst Sci 21:149–162. doi:10.1177/0963662510393624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepper D (1996) Modern environmentalism. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters T (2006) Contributions from practical theology and ethics. In: Clayton P (ed) Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 372–387

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack A (2010) Synthetic biology does not need regulation now, panel says. The New York times. Accessed 16 Dec 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23:751–766

    Article  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. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25:3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:512–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30:251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Marsh R, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Sci Technol Human Values 29:88–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C (2012) European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59:448–455. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siipi H (2005) Naturalness, unnaturalness, and artifactuality in bioethical argumentation. University of Turku (Reports from the Department of Philosophy), Turku

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Rep 5:S47–S51. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman J (2004) The future of empirical research in bioethics. J Law Med Ethics 32:226–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait J (2012) Adaptive governance of synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 13:579. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SE (1981) The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In: Harvey J (ed) Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 88–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepfer M (2005) How synthetic biology can avoid GMO-style conflicts. Nature 437:476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society of London (1985) The public understanding of science. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir L, Selgelid MJ (2009) Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology. Syst Synth Biol 3:91–97. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9037-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L Jr (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155(3767):1203–1207. doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley P (1987) The new introducing sociology. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JY, Marris C, Rose N (2011) The transnational governance of synthetic biology: scientific uncertainty, cross-borderness and the ‘art’ of governance. BIOS Working Paper, BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerubavel E (1997) Social mindscapes. An invitation to cognitive sociology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fundación BBVA, Paseo de Recoletos 10, 28001, Madrid, Spain

    Rafael Pardo Avellaneda

  2. EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbH, Wilhelmstr 56, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Kristin Hagen

Authors
  1. Rafael Pardo Avellaneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristin Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Pardo Avellaneda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Margret Engelhard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pardo Avellaneda, R., Hagen, K. (2016). Synthetic Biology: Public Perceptions of an Emergent Field. In: Engelhard, M. (eds) Synthetic Biology Analysed. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25145-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25145-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25143-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25145-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation