Designing de novo: interdisciplinary debates in synthetic biology

Abstract

Synthetic biology is often presented as a promissory field that ambitions to produce novelty by design. The ultimate promise is the production of living systems that will perform new and desired functions in predictable ways. Nevertheless, realizing promises of novelty has not proven to be a straightforward endeavour. This paper provides an overview of, and explores the existing debates on, the possibility of designing living systems de novo as they appear in interdisciplinary talks between engineering and biological views within the field of synthetic biology. To broaden such interdisciplinary debates, we include the views from the social sciences and the humanities and we point to some fundamental sources of disagreement within the field. Different views co-exist, sometimes as controversial tensions, but sometimes also pointing to integration in the form of intermediate positions. As the field is emerging, multiple choices are possible. They will inform alternative trajectories in synthetic biology and will certainly shape its future. What direction is best is to be decided in reflexive and socially robust ways.

Linking worlds: a theoretical reflection on some preconditions for ethnographic collaborations in personalized medicine

“…In short, these ' cables' permit problems to be coped with by means of both curative and projective attitudes. This speculative potential of anthropology of science and technology allows us to collaborate not simply as observers but also as critical designers (Delgado and Porcar, 2013). Stressing Fischer's figures, I find that 'test drives and libidinal drives' are especially suitable to figure this kind of work in PM-related ethnographic collaborative experimentations.…”

Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good

“…The PI of the group and Delgado engaged in further research and discussions on this theme, choosing to share them with the synthetic biology community in the form of a research article. In this coauthored paper [ 37 ], both the natural scientist and the social scientist problematize design as research practice, particularly in the field of synthetic biology, by critically attending to the assumptions underlying views from the different disciplines involved. The paper also shows how the history, philosophy, and sociology of science can contribute to opening up the notion of “design” as used in synthetic biology, problematizing it but also enriching it.…”

“…The terms of the collaboration were not settled from the start but were the result of a process of constant adjustment (between the different views) that developed over the course of this relation. The coauthored paper [ 37 ] can be seen as a concrete experimental device that allowed both authors to focus (and refocus) their collaboration and to find questions of common interest. This genuine research collaboration challenged the widespread belief that the practice of RRI is to be “outsourced” to SSH scholars, whose role will be to introduce standard versions of the public opinion or to produce public acceptance of the technology at play.…”

Synthetic Biology

“…Above all the challenges, there is the necessity to build bridges across disciplines (Delgado and Porcar 2013;Anonymous 2014). It is interesting to note that different visions coexist in synthetic biology today.…”