Skip to main content

Public Engagement in Synthetic Biology: “Experts”, “Diplomats” and the Creativity of “Idiots”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ambivalences of Creating Life

Part of the book series: Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment ((ETHICSSCI,volume 45))

Abstract

This chapter is an attempt to inspire experimentation with approaches to public engagement about emerging technologies, and takes synthetic biology as a primary site of interest. It does this at a time when the roles of critical scholars in the social sciences and humanities are becoming increasingly well documented for the contributions they make to how synthetic biology is discussed and understood through interdisciplinary collaborations. At the same time, practitioners of diverse forms of public engagement such as artists, designers, and DIYbiologists are not often (though are sometimes) explicitly involved in these collaborative assemblages, despite their abilities to contribute to a diversity of communications within and outside of the field. I connect the communication lessons being learned from interdisciplinary collaborations to public engagement practices on the basis of a “need for experimentation” that is sometimes more visibly exercised by artists, designers and DIYbiologists. I then use writings from philosopher Isabelle Stengers about the abilities of “expert”, “diplomat”, and “idiot” figures to enable the slowing down of thinking in relation to scientific and technological advances in order to explore such “experimentation” in communication. Stengers’ ideas are connected to public engagement in synthetic biology through creative and “experimental” communication practices that open up rather than close down questions about the field. I argue that public engagement practitioners and science communicators who want to slow down the—at times, misguided—public narratives of synthetic biology can look to controversies in interdisciplinary collaborations, and artistic activities in the field, for examples of communications that strive to create space for emergent, rather than decided, narratives about the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are a variety of questions raised by synthetic biology that circulate in policy and media that extend far beyond its emergence as a “de-skilling” science. These include social justice for the global south, responsible innovation, ontological implications, modes of regulation and governance, its impact on the bio-economy, and more. In this chapter I am using the example of “de-skilling” and the related term of “dual-use” to make a general point about societal concerns, but do not mean to regard these concerns as the only topics that have garnered attention and debate.

  2. 2.

    2014 marked the first year that iGEM had a competitive track for teams whose projects explicitly mobilized art and design in synthetic biology. http://2014.igem.org/Tracks/Art_Design. Accessed 01 Sept 2014.

  3. 3.

    The Kopenlab festival was comprised of “a collaborative space for citizen science, DIYbio, contemporary art and maker culture.” It took place as part of Science in the City during the Euro Science Open Forum, Copenhagen, 2014. http://kopenlab.dk. Accessed 14 June 2014.

  4. 4.

    Genspace has been serving New York City as an outreach centre promoting citizen science since 2009. In 2010 it became the first-ever community biotechnology laboratory with a Biosafety Level One facility. http://genspace.org/. Accessed 05 Sept 2014.

  5. 5.

    Synthetic Aesthetics is an international research project investigating the crossover between art, design, social science and synthetic biology. http://www.syntheticaesthetics.org. Accessed 19 Nov 2014.

  6. 6.

    Biohacking, which includes the DIYbio community, is a heterogenous “scene” that does not adhere to any one movement, mission or aim. At the 2015 PACITA Technology Assessment Conference in Berlin, German biohacker Rüdiger Trojok gave an elucidating talk about the complexities of the biohacker identity. He explained that although biohackers around the world seem to celebrate the non-institutional practice of biotechnology, they are far from a unified community. For example, some groups in North America (more closely aligned with DIYbio) affiliate their work with the possibility for commercialization, while others in Europe and Asia align more closely to an anti-capitalist and activist ethic.

  7. 7.

    Literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin developed a theory of polyphony to describe Dosteovsky’s tendency to write novels wherein his characters would each speak for themselves and not act in service of any other character’s will (Bakhtin and Caryl 1984). This creates the condition that a discussion can never be finalized according to an individual’s views, meaning that a true polyphony constitutes a collection of many voices with each their own distinctiveness. Polyphonous discussions may be aspired to for democratic purposes, so that discourses evolve according to inputs from many voices without any one voice acting in the service of another. Although the processual “de-skilling” of synthetic biology may be one important aspect for the diversification of the field, it is not the sole factor. Long traditions of synthesizing life in fiction, or experimentation to make life from non-living components in chemistry for example have also played in a role in stratifying its polyphony over time.

  8. 8.

    I recently wrote about this idea for The Evolving Culture of Science Engagement, a collaborative research blog between MIT and Culture Kettle. http://www.cultureofscienceengagement.net/blog/2015/2/2/guest-post-embodying-engagement-with-science. Accessed 5 May 2015. Part of this paragraph is excerpted from the post. I am grateful to Peter Linett for the opportunity.

  9. 9.

    Some have questioned the validity of this shift (Myskja et al. 2014).

  10. 10.

    I am thankful to Dr. Kristin Hagen for this comment.

  11. 11.

    http://www.echromi.com/. Accessed 04 March 2015.

  12. 12.

    http://studiolabproject.eu/synthetic-biology. Accessed 04 March 2015.

References

  • Agapakis CM (2014) Designing synthetic biology. ACS Synth Biol 3:121–128. doi:10.1021/sb4001068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer AS, Bulpin K, Calvert J, Kearnes M, Mackenzie A, Marris C, Martin P, Molyneux-Hodgson M, Schyfter P (2012) Towards a manifesto for experimental collaborations between social and natural scientists. https://experimentalcollaborations.wordpress.com/. Accessed 05 Dec 2014

  • Balmer AS, Bulpin KJ (2013) Left to their own devices: post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. BioSocieties 8:311–335. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2013.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin M, Caryl E (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Between the possible and the actual: philosophical perspectives on the design of synthetic organisms. Futures 48:23–31. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J (2010) New forms of collaboration: synthetic biology, social science, art and design. Presentation at Synbio in society: toward new forms of collaboration? Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC, USA, 12 May 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert J (2013) Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology. In: Doorn N, Schuurbiers D, van de Poel I, Gorman ME (eds) Early Engagem. New Technol. Open. Lab. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 175–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Catts O, Zurr I, Van Sice C (2013) The mechanism of life—After Stéphane Leduc. In: Science Gallery, https://dublin.sciencegallery.com/growyourown/mechanismlife%E2%80%94afterst%C3%A9phaneleduc. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

  • Church GM, Elowitz MB, Smolke CD et al (2014) Realizing the potential of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15:289–294. doi:10.1038/nrm3767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies SR (2014) Knowing and loving: public engagement beyond discourse. Sci Technol Stud 27(3):90–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne A, Raby F (2013) Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Elam M, Bertilsson M (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur J Soc Theory 6:233–251. doi:10.1177/1368431003006002005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453. doi:10.1038/nature04342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald D, Littlefield MM, Knudsen KJ et al (2014) Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: A transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter. Soc Stud Sci 44(5):701–721. doi:10.1177/0306312714531473

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg AD, Calvert J, Schyfter P et al (2014) Synthetic aesthetics: investigating synthetic biology’s designs on nature. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Grushkin D, Kuiken T and Millet P (2013) Seven myths and realities about do-it-yourself biology. SYNBIO 5. Woodrow Wilson Center

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson C, Lentzos F, Marris C (2014) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: how scared should we be? Kings College London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle A (2009) Synthetic biology and biosecurity. EMBO Rep 10(1S):S23–S27. doi:10.1038/embor.2009.119

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller EF (2003) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines, 1st edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerbe W, Schmidt M (2013) Splicing boundaries: the experiences of bioart exhibition visitors. Leonardo. doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00701

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W (2011) Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 0963662511400331. doi:10.1177/0963662511400331

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuiken T, Pauwels E (2012) Beyond the laboratory and far away. Policy brief. Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2008) What is the style of matters of concern? Uitgeverij Van Gorcum

    Google Scholar 

  • Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. In: Poinat A (ed) Étude de biophysique. Peiresc, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengwiler M (2007) Participatory approaches in science and technology: historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Sci Technol Human Values 33:186–200. doi:10.1177/0162243907311262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris C (2015) The construction of imaginaries of the public as a threat to synthetic biology. Sci Cult 24(1):83–98. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.986320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris C, Rose N (2012) Let’s get real on synthetic biology—opinion—11 June 2012—New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.html#.VI399aaGNMw. Accessed 14 Dec 2014

  • Marris C, Jefferson C, Lentzos F (2014) Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: the case of dual use and synthetic biology. BioSocieties 9:393–420. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2014.32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A, Cserer A, Schmidt M (2013) Frankenstein 2.0.: identifying and characterising synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films. Life Sci Soc Policy 9:9. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael M (2012) “What are we busy doing?” Engaging the Idiot. Sci Technol Human Values 37:528–554. doi:10.1177/0162243911428624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myskja BK, Nydal R, Myhr AI (2014) We have never been ELSI researchers—there is no need for a post-ELSI shift. Life Sci Soc Policy 10:1–17. doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0009-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96:1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:31–46. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osbourne G (2012) Speech by the chancellor of the exchequer, Right Honourable George Osborne MP, to the Royal Society, November 9, London, Royal Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2011) The value of science and technology studies (STS) to sustainability research: a critical approach toward synthetic biology promises. In: Jaeger CC, Tàbara JD, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable development. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels E (2010) Who let the humanists into the lab. Val UL Rev 45:1447

    Google Scholar 

  • Penders B (2011) DIY biology. Nature 472:167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering A (2010) The cybernetic brain: sketches of another future. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: a challenge to biosafety. Syst Synth Biol 2:1–6. doi:10.1007/s11693-008-9018-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherkow JS, Greely HT (2013) What if extinction is not forever? Science 340:32–33. doi:10.1126/science.1236965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stengers I (2005) The cosmopolitical proposal. In: Latour B, Weibel P (eds) Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. MIT Press, pp 994–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengers I (2013) Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cult Stud Rev 11:183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tochetti S (2012) DIYbiologists as “makers” of personal biologies: how MAKE Magazine and Maker Faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology. Journal of Peer Production. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/diybiologists-as-makers/. Accessed 16 Dec 2014

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Britt Wray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wray, B. (2016). Public Engagement in Synthetic Biology: “Experts”, “Diplomats” and the Creativity of “Idiots”. In: Hagen, K., Engelhard, M., Toepfer, G. (eds) Ambivalences of Creating Life. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21087-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21088-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics