Advertisement

Scientists’ and the Publics’ Views of Synthetic Biology

  • Emily L. HowellEmail author
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Michael A. Xenos
  • Seokbeom Kwon
  • Jan Youtie
  • Philip Shapira
Chapter
Part of the Risk, Systems and Decisions book series (RSD)

Abstract

In the past decade, advances in synthetic biology research and applications have raised important questions about the role of humans in shaping the natural world. A broad field combining multiple disciplines, synthetic biology involves the engineering of biological components and systems to create novel organisms or to change the makeup of existing organisms in novel ways. It has applications for medicine, energy, sustainability, security, and agriculture, among others. Although some argue that humans have always been changing nature (Kaebnick 2013; Kaebnick and Murray 2013), or that categorizing humans as separate from nature is misconceived, discussion surrounding synthetic biology reveals that many see synthetic biology as increasingly blurring the lines between natural and man-made (Boldt 2013; European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers 2010; Jennings 2013). Specific concerns differ depending on the particular field and applications, with a range of ecological, environmental, bio- and cybersecurity, health, regulatory, infrastructural, societal, and equity uncertainties raised (Cummings and Kuzma 2017; Goodman and Hessel 2013; Hoffman et al. 2017; Wintle et al. 2017).

References

  1. Akin, H., Rose, K. M., Scheufele, D. A., Simis-Wilkinson, M. J., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., & Corley, E. A. (2017). Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. Bioscience, 67(3), 290–300.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2009). Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 566–577.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barke, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 167–176.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattachary, D., Calitz, J. P., & Hunter, A. (2010). Synthetic biology dialogue. London: TNS-BMRB. https://bbsrc.ukri.org/documents/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue-pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Boldt, J. (2013). Creating life: Synthetic biology and ethics. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 35–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (1987). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830–840.Google Scholar
  7. Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11–39). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cummings, C. L., & Kuzma, J. (2017). Societal risk evaluation scheme (SRES): Scenario-based multi-criteria evaluation of synthetic biology applications. PLoS One, 12(1), e0168564.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1524-4774.2011.01015.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowie, M. (1994). Pinto madness. In D. Birsch & J. Fielder (Eds.), The Ford Pinto case (pp. 15–36).Google Scholar
  11. Dragojlovic, N., & Einsiedel, E. (2013). Playing god or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 869–885.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission Directorate General for Health & Consumers. (2010). Synthetic biology from science to governance. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/dialogue_collaboration/docs/synbio_workshop_report_en.pdf
  14. Evans, J. H. (2013). “Teaching humanness” claims in synthetic biology and public policy bioethics. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 177–203). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fauci, A. S. (2010). Advances in synthetic biology: Significance and implications. Paper presented at the committee on energy and commerce in the United States house of representatives, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21(4), 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1979.9929722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleming, P., Townsend, E., van Hilten, J. A., Spence, A., & Ferguson, E. (2012). Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), 857–873.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.666759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidely different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 643–648.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman, M., & Hessel, A. (2013, May 28). The bio-crime prophecy: DNA hacking the biggest opportunity since cyber attacks. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-bio-crime-prophecy
  23. Hart Research Associates. (2010). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Retrieved from http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/6456/
  24. Hart Research Associates. (2013). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among Adults. Retrieved from SynBio Project: http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/6655/
  25. Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703–2715.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoffman, E., Hanson, J., & Thomas, J. (2017). The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. Friends of the Earth U.S., International Center for Technology Assessment, and the ETC Group. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/principles-oversight-synthetic-biology
  29. Holdren, J. P., Sunstein, C. R., & Siddiqui, I. A. (2011). Memorandum: Principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies. United States Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. International Risk Governance Council. (2010). Policy brief – guidelines for the appropriate risk governance of synthetic biology. Retrieved from Geneva.Google Scholar
  31. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch – scientific advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jasanoff, S., Hurlbut, J. B., & Saha, K. (2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science & Technology, 32(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  33. Jennings, B. (2013). Biotechnology as cultural meaning: Reflections on the moral reception of synthetic biology. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 149–175). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaebnick, G. E. (2013). Engineered microbes in industry and science: A new human relationship to nature? In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 51–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaebnick, G. E., & Murray, T. H. (2013). Introduction. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2090–2109.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lustig, A. (2013). Appeals to nature and the natural in debates about synthetic biology. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 15–33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 633–647.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marris, C. (2015). The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Science as Culture, 24(1), 83–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pielke, R., Jr. (2007). The honest broker – making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Retrieved from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf
  45. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–79). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality. Risk Analysis, 21(2), 341–356.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarewitz, D. (2015). CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522(7557), 413–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289–1299.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheufele, D. A., & Beier, D. (2017, May 18). Human genome editing: Who gets to decide? Scientific American. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/human-genome-editing-who-gets-to-decide/
  50. Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Dunwoody, S., Corley, E. A., Guston, D., & Peters, H. P. (2009, August 4). Are scientists really out of touch? The Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/are-scientists-really-out-of-touch-43968
  51. Schmidt, M., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Torgersen, H., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2009). A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 3–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9034-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shapira, P., Kwon, S., & Youtie, J. (2017). Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1439–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2452-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shih, T. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2012). Disagreement and value predispositions: Understanding public opinion about stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 357–367.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21(3), 14–39.Google Scholar
  56. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603–1607.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intutitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 661–675.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strobel, L. P. (1994). The Pinto documents. In D. Birsch & J. Fielder (Eds.), The Ford Pinto case (pp. 37–53). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  59. Su, L. Y., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2016). Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 196–206.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tesh, S. N. (1988). Vietnam veterans and agent orange. In Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease prevention policy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Trump, B. D., Cegan, J. C., Wells, E., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2018). A critical juncture for synthetic biology: Lessons from nanotechnology could inform public discourse and further development of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 19(7), e46153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vincent, B. B. (2013). Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biological Theory (Thematic Issue: Synthesis), 8, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425–437.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wintle, B. C., Boehm, C. R., Rhodes, C., Molloy, J. C., Millett, P., Adam, L., et al. (2017). A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering. eLife, 6, e30247.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wright, G., Pearman, A., & Yardley, K. (2000). Risk perception in the U.K. oil and gas production industry: Are expert loss-prevention managers’ perceptions different from those of the members of the public? Risk Analysis, 20(5), 681–690.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Runge, K., Su, L. Y., et al. (2014). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727–736.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2015). News selectivity and beyond: Motivated reasoning in a changing media environment. In Publizistik und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (pp. 83–104).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily L. Howell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dominique Brossard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael A. Xenos
    • 1
  • Seokbeom Kwon
    • 3
  • Jan Youtie
    • 3
    • 4
  • Philip Shapira
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Life Sciences CommunicationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Morgridge Institute for ResearchMadisonUSA
  3. 3.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.Manchester Institute for Innovation Research, The University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations