The Promises and Realities of Integration in Synthetic Biology: A View From Social Science

Abstract

Discussions about the responsible advancement of synthetic biology science are at fever pitch. Commentators from across the globe are calling for greater integrated science investments and more inclusive governance processes in the development and implementation of these potentially disruptive technologies. We take stock of the promises and realities of science integration by sharing our experiences of embarking on this very challenge in Australia. We conclude by offering suggestions for bringing about the enabling conditions for improved integration across the natural and social sciences. Four key actions are articulated to help pivot synthetic biology toward a more integrated scientific endeavor: (a) formalizing inclusivity from inception to project conclusion; (b) valuing differing philosophical positions as a strength rather than a barrier; (c) accepting that integration takes persistence and communication but is immensely rewarding; and (d) promoting meaningful interactions, such as pursuing joint opportunities, co-designing and co-publishing research. We argue that these actions are key enablers for realizing science integration in synthetic biology.

Three synthetic biology applications and their paths to impact in Australia: Cane toads, bacteriophages, and biomining microbes

“…This period in history continues to influence the direction of science planning more broadly as well as fueling continued industry apprehension in genetic science investment in the absence of clear societal approval to do so. [ 16 ]…”

“…This period in history continues to influence the direction of science planning more broadly as well as fueling continued industry apprehension in genetic science investment in the absence of clear societal approval to do so. [16] Public acceptance of genetic technologies, while not always linked to the genetic editing of toads, was considered among interviewees from multiple sectors as significant to achieving broad social acceptability. Stakeholders considered these concerns would likely temper enthusiasm for future release of gene edited cane toads, and therefore the perception of anti-GM sentiment would remain as a key barrier to achieving science impact.…”

“…Along the path to achieving research impact, synthetic biology (synbio herein) requires integrated research design that facilitates the incorporation of the social, economic, and institutional considerations of technology use. [16,28,58] Translating research to effectively deliver to industry needs and societal expectations is a key step in realizing research impact, including commercial success. [15,22,56] Under a responsible science agenda, it is the consideration of these broader aspects of technology use that occurs, in addition to meeting expected governance requirements, which are primarily concerned with the protection human and natural environments.…”

“…The pathway to achieving impact for new technologies can be a complex and protracted process, including such things as: performing social science studies to understand the factors that may influence public acceptability of new technologies and processes or; the creation of multidisciplinary research teams that tangibly integrate multidisciplinary approaches to secure more sustainable research outcomes. [ 16 ] This study investigated the perspectives, expectations and capacities of experts and stakeholders who are likely to use, approve or invest in synbio science to understand the avenues and bottlenecks for technology use beyond the laboratory. By engaging with experts and stakeholders in this way, it should be possible to identify critical points and pathways in the broader innovation system that, when effectively attended to, will support the translation of science outputs into real‐world research impact.…”

SynBio 2.0, a new era for synthetic life: Neglected essential functions for resilience

“…However, the main question remains whether and how all these designs could be implemented under natural conditions, as the public is still very reluctant to accept genetically modified organisms (Carter & Mankad, 2020). In this context, the immediate future of SynBio-based metabolic engineering will depend very much on the public's reaction to the unmet needs created by the demands of sustainability in a world dominated by the explosion of the human population.…”