The Bio:Fiction film festival: Sensing how a debate about synthetic biology might evolve

Let's (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues

Synthetic biology is an emerging technoscience, which, so far, lacks a broader public debate. To foster early societal dialogue, a range of public engagement events have been initiated over the past decade. This article discusses the configurations of the emerging debate on synthetic biology in the context of the EU FP7 project SYNENERGENE. Drawing on notions of frames and framing in media studies and policy analysis, we ask which distinct frames are invoked and become dominant in current discussions about synthetic biology. Our analysis indicates significant reconfigurations in the framing of synthetic biology compared with previous biotechnology debates. Frames that traditionally served to problematize biotechnology, that is, ethics, risks, and economics, become less dominant. Instead, the potential to contribute to social progress is placed in the foreground. Moreover, discussions on ethics, risks, and governance frequently occur on an abstract level, invoking generic statements that could be made for any new technology.

Frame Reflection Lab: a Playful Method for Frame Reflection on Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology is an emerging technology that asks for inclusive reflection on how people frame the field. To unravel how we can facilitate such reflection, this study evaluates the Frame Reflection Lab (FRL). Building upon playfulness design principles, the FRL comprises a workshop with video-narratives and co-creative group exercises. We studied how the FRL facilitated frame reflection by organizing workshops with various student groups. Analysis of 12 group conversations and 158 mini-exit surveys yielded patterns in first-order reflection (problem analysis and solution finding in reflection on the development of synthetic biology as a field) as well as patterns in second-order reflection (reflection on values and assumptions underlying the first-order reflection). Also patterns in participants' (re)framing of synthetic biology could be induced; participants' viewpoints converged to some extent, yet with openness to individual viewpoint differences. Although the FRL method fortified the reflection processes of participants, the narratives and the workshop's flexible format could inhibit the reflection too. Therefore, we advise designers of future frame reflection methods to apply stronger conversational facilitation and narratives of slightly mysterious yet identifiable narrators, in case e.g. video-narratives are created and used to scaffold the reflection process. Nevertheless, we argue that the use of a playful frame reflection method like the FRL could function well as (1) a step to precede more application-specific deliberation or decision-making on synthetic biology and as (2) a method for the collection of contemporary citizen viewpoints plus rationales underlying these, for the further (societally) responsible development of the emerging field.

Supporting Citizens in Reflection on Synthetic Biology by Means of Video-Narratives

To unravel how video-narratives can support reflection in Responsible Research and Innovation contexts, this study evaluates four video-narratives designed for citizen-reflection on synthetic biology. Each video narrative comprised separate clips about three subtopics in which actors represented different views of synthetic biology. The video-clips were presented to Dutch citizens in two different setups: per narrator and per subtopic. Both setups appeared to trigger three reflection processes and three reflection outcomes. Our findings suggest that video-narratives shown per subtopic support reflection more extensively, provided that workshop setups pay considerable attention to reflection on values and assumptions.

Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs)

In 1968, Jürgen Habermas claimed that, in an advanced technological society, the emancipatory force of knowledge can only be regained by actively recovering the 'forgotten experience of reflection'. In this article, we argue that, in the contemporary situation, critical reflection requires a deliberative ambiance, a process of mutual learning, a consciously organised process of deliberative and distributed reflection. And this especially applies, we argue, to critical reflection concerning a specific subset of technologies which are actually oriented towards optimising human cognition (neuro-enhancement). In order to create a deliberative ambiance, fostering critical upstream reflection on emerging technologies, we developed (in the context of a European 7^th Framework Programme project on neuro-enhancement and responsible research and innovation, called NERRI) the concept of a mutual learning exercise (MLE). Building on a number of case studies, we analyse what an MLE involves, both practically and conceptually, focussing on key aspects such as ambiance and expertise, the role of 'genres of the imagination' and the profiles of various 'subcultures of debate'. Ideally, an MLE becomes a contemporary version of the Socratic agora, providing a stage where multiple and sometimes unexpected voices and perspectives mutually challenge each other, in order to strength-en the societal robustness and responsiveness of emerg-ing technologies.

Uncritical and unbalanced coverage of synthetic biology in the Nordic press

Synthetic biology will probably have a high impact on a variety of fields, such as healthcare, environment, biofuels, agriculture, and so on. A driving theme in European research policy is the importance of maintaining public legitimacy and support. Media can influence public attitudes and are therefore an important object of study. Through qualitative content analysis, this study investigates the press coverage of synthetic biology in the major Nordic countries between 2009 and 2014. The press coverage was found to be event-driven and there were striking similarities between countries when it comes to framing, language use, and treated themes. Reporters showed a marked dependence on their sources, mainly scientists and stakeholders, who thus drives the media agenda. The media portrayal was very positive, with an optimistic look at future benefits and very little discussion of possible risks.