Abstract
In the past decade, advances in synthetic biology research and applications have raised important questions about the role of humans in shaping the natural world. A broad field combining multiple disciplines, synthetic biology involves the engineering of biological components and systems to create novel organisms or to change the makeup of existing organisms in novel ways. It has applications for medicine, energy, sustainability, security, and agriculture, among others. Although some argue that humans have always been changing nature (Kaebnick 2013; Kaebnick and Murray 2013), or that categorizing humans as separate from nature is misconceived, discussion surrounding synthetic biology reveals that many see synthetic biology as increasingly blurring the lines between natural and man-made (Boldt 2013; European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers 2010; Jennings 2013). Specific concerns differ depending on the particular field and applications, with a range of ecological, environmental, bio- and cybersecurity, health, regulatory, infrastructural, societal, and equity uncertainties raised (Cummings and Kuzma 2017; Goodman and Hessel 2013; Hoffman et al. 2017; Wintle et al. 2017).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akin, H., Rose, K. M., Scheufele, D. A., Simis-Wilkinson, M. J., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., & Corley, E. A. (2017). Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. Bioscience, 67(3), 290–300.
Ansolabehere, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2009). Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 566–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp041.
Barke, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 167–176.
Bhattachary, D., Calitz, J. P., & Hunter, A. (2010). Synthetic biology dialogue. London: TNS-BMRB. https://bbsrc.ukri.org/documents/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue-pdf.
Boldt, J. (2013). Creating life: Synthetic biology and ethics. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 35–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bord, R. J., & O’Connor, R. E. (1987). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 830–840.
Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11–39). New York: Routledge.
Cummings, C. L., & Kuzma, J. (2017). Societal risk evaluation scheme (SRES): Scenario-based multi-criteria evaluation of synthetic biology applications. PLoS One, 12(1), e0168564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168564.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1524-4774.2011.01015.x.
Dowie, M. (1994). Pinto madness. In D. Birsch & J. Fielder (Eds.), The Ford Pinto case (pp. 15–36).
Dragojlovic, N., & Einsiedel, E. (2013). Playing god or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445011.
Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 89–101.
European Commission Directorate General for Health & Consumers. (2010). Synthetic biology from science to governance. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/dialogue_collaboration/docs/synbio_workshop_report_en.pdf
Evans, J. H. (2013). “Teaching humanness” claims in synthetic biology and public policy bioethics. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 177–203). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fauci, A. S. (2010). Advances in synthetic biology: Significance and implications. Paper presented at the committee on energy and commerce in the United States house of representatives, Washington, D.C.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21(4), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1979.9929722.
Fleming, P., Townsend, E., van Hilten, J. A., Spence, A., & Ferguson, E. (2012). Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), 857–873. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.666759.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidely different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x.
Goodman, M., & Hessel, A. (2013, May 28). The bio-crime prophecy: DNA hacking the biggest opportunity since cyber attacks. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-bio-crime-prophecy
Hart Research Associates. (2010). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Retrieved from http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/6456/
Hart Research Associates. (2013). Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among Adults. Retrieved from SynBio Project: http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/6655/
Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017.
Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8.
Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380386.
Hoffman, E., Hanson, J., & Thomas, J. (2017). The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. Friends of the Earth U.S., International Center for Technology Assessment, and the ETC Group. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/principles-oversight-synthetic-biology
Holdren, J. P., Sunstein, C. R., & Siddiqui, I. A. (2011). Memorandum: Principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies. United States Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, D.C.
International Risk Governance Council. (2010). Policy brief – guidelines for the appropriate risk governance of synthetic biology. Retrieved from Geneva.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch – scientific advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S., Hurlbut, J. B., & Saha, K. (2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science & Technology, 32(1), 25–32.
Jennings, B. (2013). Biotechnology as cultural meaning: Reflections on the moral reception of synthetic biology. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 149–175). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaebnick, G. E. (2013). Engineered microbes in industry and science: A new human relationship to nature? In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 51–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaebnick, G. E., & Murray, T. H. (2013). Introduction. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2090–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.
Lustig, A. (2013). Appeals to nature and the natural in debates about synthetic biology. In G. E. Kaebnick & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Synthetic biology and morality (pp. 15–33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x.
Marris, C. (2015). The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Science as Culture, 24(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986320.
Pielke, R., Jr. (2007). The honest broker – making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Retrieved from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf
Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–79). Westport: Praeger.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality. Risk Analysis, 21(2), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212116.
Sarewitz, D. (2015). CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522(7557), 413–414.
Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x.
Scheufele, D. A., & Beier, D. (2017, May 18). Human genome editing: Who gets to decide? Scientific American. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/human-genome-editing-who-gets-to-decide/
Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Dunwoody, S., Corley, E. A., Guston, D., & Peters, H. P. (2009, August 4). Are scientists really out of touch? The Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/are-scientists-really-out-of-touch-43968
Schmidt, M., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Torgersen, H., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2009). A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9034-7.
Shapira, P., Kwon, S., & Youtie, J. (2017). Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1439–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2452-5.
Shih, T. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2012). Disagreement and value predispositions: Understanding public opinion about stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds029.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21(3), 14–39.
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603–1607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intutitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 661–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x.
Strobel, L. P. (1994). The Pinto documents. In D. Birsch & J. Fielder (Eds.), The Ford Pinto case (pp. 37–53). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Su, L. Y., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2016). Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv031.
Tesh, S. N. (1988). Vietnam veterans and agent orange. In Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease prevention policy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Trump, B. D., Cegan, J. C., Wells, E., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2018). A critical juncture for synthetic biology: Lessons from nanotechnology could inform public discourse and further development of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 19(7), e46153.
Vincent, B. B. (2013). Ethical perspectives on synthetic biology. Biological Theory (Thematic Issue: Synthesis), 8, 368–375.
Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x.
Wintle, B. C., Boehm, C. R., Rhodes, C., Molloy, J. C., Millett, P., Adam, L., et al. (2017). A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering. eLife, 6, e30247. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30247.
Wright, G., Pearman, A., & Yardley, K. (2000). Risk perception in the U.K. oil and gas production industry: Are expert loss-prevention managers’ perceptions different from those of the members of the public? Risk Analysis, 20(5), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205061.
Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Runge, K., Su, L. Y., et al. (2014). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061.
Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2015). News selectivity and beyond: Motivated reasoning in a changing media environment. In Publizistik und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (pp. 83–104).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Howell, E.L. et al. (2020). Scientists’ and the Publics’ Views of Synthetic Biology. In: Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., Linkov, I. (eds) Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance. Risk, Systems and Decisions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27263-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27264-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)