Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community

Abstract

Based on criticism of the “ethical, legal and social implications” (ELSI) paradigm, researchers in science and technology studies (STS) have begun to create and move into “post-ELSI” spaces. In this paper, we pool our experiences of working towards collaborative practices with colleagues in engineering and science disciplines in the field of synthetic biology. We identify a number of different roles that we have taken, been assumed to take, or have had foisted upon us as we have sought to develop post-ELSI practices. We argue that the post-ELSI situation is characterised by the demands placed on STS researchers and other social scientists to fluctuate between roles as contexts shift in terms of power relations, affective tenor, and across space and over time. This leads us to posit four orientations for post-ELSI collaborative practices that could help establish more fruitful negotiations around these roles.

Future‐proofing synthetic biology: educating the next generation

“…The original paradigm for social responsibility in genetic engineering, espoused by the biotechnology community nearly two decades ago, and subsequently by the synthetic biology community was dubbed ELSI: consideration of the ethical, legal and social implications of the technologies and their applications. However, criticism of the ELSI paradigm [67] has led to the exploration of a more nuanced approach to these issues, known as responsible research and innovation [RRI]. RRI can be understood as a way of framing the relationship between science and society, and provides a framework to enable a scientist or researcher to reflect upon the care they should have when fulfilling their roles as scientists, researchers and innovators.…”

What can science and technology studies learn from art and design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’

“…As well as regarding themselves as 'makers', the artists and designers also thought of themselves as provocateurs, jesters or saboteurs, again in contrast with us. Of course STS has a tradition of playful work exhibited by authors like Haraway, Ashmore, Mulkay and Woolgar, and we have tried to adopt 'trickster' roles ourselves in our interactions with synthetic biologists, with mixed results (see Balmer et al, 2015). But play, humour and irony were central to the work of the artists and designers on the project, as shown by Daisy and James King's guerrilla tactics at the undergraduate synthetic biology conference described above, Oron and Hideo's attempt to 'engineer futility' into cyanobacteria (Catts and Iwasaki, 2014: 198), and the audacity of armpit cheese.…”

“…In both Europe and the US, there are increasing pressures on STS researchers to become tagged onto scientific grants to deal with the 'ethical, legal and social issues' (Balmer et al, 2015). STS scholars can become heavily involved in the topics we study and can come to play a role in the development of new scientific fields.…”

Hype After Hype: From Bio to Nano to AI

“…For one thing, the pattern might result from the field's maturing, with demand for socio-ethical impact assessments becoming saturated over time. For another, the decline might reflect the displacement of ELSI/ELSA by new governance language which corresponds with SSH criticism of the terminology's normative shortcomings [16][17][18].…”