Governing Synthetic Biology: Processes and Outcomes

Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.

Bioplastics science from a policy vantage point

Society is fundamentally ambivalent to the use of plastics. On the one hand, plastics are uniquely flexible materials that have seen them occupy a huge range of functions, from simple packing materials to complex engineering components. On the other hand, their durability has raised concerns about their end-of-life disposal. When that disposal route is landfill, their invulnerability to microbial decomposition, combined with relatively low density and high bulk, means that plastics will occupy increasing amounts of landfill space in a world where available suitable landfill sites is shrinking. The search for biodegradable plastics and their introduction to the marketplace would appear to be a suitable amelioration strategy for such a problem. And yet the uptake of biodegradable plastics has been slow. The term biodegradable itself has entered public controversy, with accidental and intended misuse of the term; the intended misuse has led to accusations and instances of 'greenwashing'. For this and other reasons standards for biodegradability and compostability testing of plastics have been sought. An environmental dilemma with more far-reaching implications is climate change. The need for rapid and deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cuts is one of the drivers for the resurgence of industrial biotechnology generally, and the search for bio-based plastics more specifically. Bio-based has come to mean plastics based on renewable resources, but this need not necessarily imply biodegradability. If the primary purpose is GHG emissions savings, then once again plastics durability can be a virtue, if the end-of-life solution can be energy recovery during incineration or recycling. The pattern of production is shifting from the true biodegradable plastics to the bio-based plastics, and that trend is likely to persist into the future. This paper looks at aspects of the science of biodegradable and bio-based plastics from the perspective of policy advisers and makers. It is often said that the bioplastics suffer from a lack of a favourable policy regime when compared to the wide-ranging set of policy instruments that are available on both the supply and demand side of biofuels production. Some possible policy measures are discussed.

A life scientist, an engineer and a social scientist walk into a lab: challenges of dual-use engagement and education in synthetic biology

The discussion of dual-use education is often predicated on a discrete population of practicing life scientists exhibiting certain deficiencies in awareness or expertise. This has lead to the claim that there is a greater requirement for awareness raising and education amongst this population. However, there is yet to be an inquiry into the impact of the 'convergent' nature of emerging techno-sciences upon the prospects of dual-use education. The field of synthetic biology, although often portrayed as homogeneous, is in fact composed of various sub-fields and communities. Its practitioners have diverse academic backgrounds. The research institutions that have fostered its development in the UK often have their own sets of norms and practices in engagement with ethical, legal and social issues associated with scientific knowledge and technologies. The area is also complicated by the emergence of synthetic biologists outside traditional research environments, the so called 'do-it-yourself' or 'garage biologists'. This paper untangles some of the complexities in the current state of synthetic biology and addresses the prospects for dual-use education for practitioners. It provides a short overview of the field and discusses identified dual-use issues. There follows a discussion of UK networks in synthetic biology, including their engagement with ethical, legal, social and dual-use issues and limited educational efforts in relation to these. It concludes by outlining options for developing a more systematic dual-use education strategy for synthetic biology.