Placing a New Science: Exploring Spatial and Temporal Configurations of Synthetic Biology

Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 29)

Abstract

Synthetic biology is a field that can be and often is described as “emerging”. The field-in-emergence is creating futures, problems and new objects that remain elusive. By turning an ethnographic gaze on the nascent stages of a new research field, we can pose interesting questions about the formation of local configurations and their relations to wider policies and actions in ways that the analysis of established fields would struggle to illuminate. In this paper we explore how a new field such as synthetic biology is actively ‘placed’, tracing the development of the field in the UK and in France. The concept of ‘placing’ allows us to interrogate the local configurations of an emerging field and tie these into non-local manoeuvres. The concept permits us to comprehend and link entities that are commonly differentiated as “local” (universities, research teams), “national” (funding, policy-streams, public debates, platforms), and “non-local” (international competitions, international conferences and publications). Placing a science means that the practices and discourses of the science co-emerge with its modes of organisation and geographies and with its histories and futures.

Keywords

Synthetic biology Placing Emergence Policy France United Kingdom Public dialogues iGEM 

References

  1. Balmer, A., and P. Martin. 2008. Synthetic biology: Social and ethical challenges. An independent review commissioned by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Swindon: BBSRC.Google Scholar
  2. Bensaude Vincent, B. 2009. Synthetic biology as a replica of synthetic chemistry? Uses and misuses of history. Biological Theory 4(4): 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkard, D., and F. Képès. 2008. Succès de la première équipe française lors de la compétition iGEM de biologie synthétique. Médecine/Sciences 24: 541–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2003. A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulpin, K., and S. Molyneux-Hodgson. 2013. The disciplining of scientific communities. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 38(2): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M., and J. Law. 2004. Introduction: Absence-presence, circulation, and encountering in complex space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvert, J., and P. Martin. 2009. The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports 10: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campos, L. 2009. That was the synthetic biology that was. In Synthetic biology: The technoscience and its societal consequences, ed. M. Schmidt, 5–21. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groupe de travail “Biologie de synthèse”. 2011. Biologie de synthèse: développements, potentialités et défis. Paris: Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche.Google Scholar
  10. Haseloff, J., and J. Ajioka. 2009. Synthetic biology: History, challenges and prospects. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 6: S389–S391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellsten, I., and B. Nerlich. 2011. Synthetic biology: Building the language of a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genetics and Society 30(4): 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hetherington, K. 2004. Second-handedness: Consumption, disposal and absent presence. Environment and Planning D 22(1): 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hine, C. 2007. Multi-sited ethnography as a middle range methodology for contemporary STS. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 652–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IFRIS. 2011. Biologie de synthèse: conditions d’un dialogue avec la société. Report for the Science and Society section of the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research, November 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, C.B. 2010. Ontologies for developing things: Making health care futures through technology. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Keller, E.F. 2009. What does synthetic biology have to do with biology? BioSocieties 4(2): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Képès, F. 2012. Biologie de synthèse: la science de toutes les ruptures. Biotech Finances 539: 6–7.Google Scholar
  18. Law, J. 2004. And if the global were small and non-coherent? Method, complexity, and the baroque. Environment and Planning D 22(1): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lentzos, F. 2009. Synthetic biology in the social context: The UK debate to date. BioSocieties 4(2): 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Livingstone, D. 2005. Text, talk and testimony: Geographical reflections on scientific habits. An afterword. The British Journal for the History of Science 38: 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus, G.E. 1998. Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, M. 2012. Placing and tracing absence: A material culture of the immaterial. Journal of Material Culture 17(1): 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, M. 2013. Debating synthetic biology: A necessity or a masquerade? CSI Research Blog, July 2013. http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/blog/en/?p=36. Accessed 15 July 2013.
  24. Milne, R. 2012. Pharmaceutical prospects: Biopharming and the geography of technological expectations. Social Studies of Science 42(2): 290–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molyneux-Hodgson, S., and M. Meyer. 2009. Tales of emergence – Synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 4(2-3): 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morange, M. 2009. A new revolution? The place of systems biology and synthetic biology in the history of biology. EMBO Reports 10: S50–S53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OPECST [Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques]. 2012. Les enjeux de la biologie de synthèse. Paris: OPECST.Google Scholar
  28. Ophir, A., and S. Shapin. 1991. The place of knowledge: A methodological survey. Science in Context 4: 3–21.Google Scholar
  29. Pei, L., S. Gaisser, and M. Schmidt. 2012. Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organisations. Public Understanding of Science 21(2): 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powell, R.C. 2007. Geographies of science: Histories, localities, practices, futures. Progress in Human Geography 31(3): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, A., M. O’Malley, S. Müller-Wille, J. Calvert, and J. Dupré. 2007. Disciplinary baptisms: A comparison of the naming stories of genetics, molecular biology, genomics and systems biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29: 5–32.Google Scholar
  32. Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2009. Synthetic biology: Ethical ramifications 2009. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3(1-4): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robbins, P. 2009. The genesis of synthetic biology: Innovation, interdisciplinarity and the IGEM student competition. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 8–11 Aug 2009.Google Scholar
  34. Royal Academy of Engineering. 2009. Synthetic biology: Scope, applications and implications. http://www.raeng.org.uk/societygov/policy/current_issues/synthetic_biology/default.htm. Accessed 7 June 2013.
  35. Schyfter, P. 2011. Technological biology? Things and kinds in synthetic biology. Biology & Philosophy 27(1): 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SNRI. 2009. Stratégie Nationale de Recherche et d’Innovation: Rapport Général. Paris: French Ministry of Higher Education and Research.Google Scholar
  37. SNRI. 2011. Stratégie Nationale de Recherche et d’Innovation. Biologie de Synthèse: Développements, Potentialités et Défis. Paris: French Ministry of Higher Education and Research.Google Scholar
  38. Synthetic Biology Dialogue. 2010. Report published by BBSRC, EPSRC and Sciencewise. http://bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/findings-recommendations.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2013.
  39. Willetts, D. 2013. Eight great technologies. Pamphlet produced by Policy Exchange. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/eight-great-technologies. Accessed 7 June 2013.
  40. Yeh, B.J., and A.L. Wendell. 2007. Synthetic biology: Lessons from the history of synthetic organic chemistry. Nature Chemical Biology 3: 521–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, J., C. Marris, and N. Rose. 2011. The international governance of synthetic biology: Scientific uncertainty, cross-borderness and the ‘art’ of governance. Working paper prepared for the Royal Society Science Policy Centre, May 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agro ParisTech (UFR Sociologies) and INRA (SenS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations