From 2020science.org:So, you have a cool new science that could make a major impact on
global challenges like energy, disease and pollution and you want to
make sure it reaches its full potential. What do you do? At some
point, having a heart to heart with “the public” might be a good idea.
Especially if your “cool new science” involves playing around with the
very building blocks of life!
A just-released national survey on awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology from the Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
should help kick-start this conversation. For the first time, this
annual telephone poll has included questions on synthetic biology—the
use of advanced science and engineering to make or re-design living
organisms (such as bacteria) so that they can carry out specific
functions. The results are intriguing, and should help inform the path
toward responsible and socially acceptable uses of synthetic biology.
But more on this later…
I have been eagerly awaiting the results of the survey for some
time. Would people’s awareness and attitudes match those found for
nanotechnology, or would the extension of nanometer-scale manipulation
to the biological world raise new fears and hopes? And how would the
concept of making new life from dead chemicals resonate with the
religiously inclined?
Impatient for results, I tried out a quick experiment on my
eleven-year-old son. Presented with a one-line definition of synthetic
biology similar to the one above, I asked what his first thoughts
were. The results: “Isn’t that against the Bible?” Followed
immediately by “Isn’t that like Frankenstein’s monster?”
At this point I should establish that the reason for using such a
young and naïve subject was to gauge how accessible the definition for
synthetic biology was that we were developing. But his responses
intrigued me. He is not overtly religious (although he does attend
church regularly), and he is untainted by the Frankenfood debates
surrounding genetically modified foods. Yet he immediately focused in
on two key areas that seem to dog attitudes toward biological
manipulation. Understandably therefore, I was keen to see whether the
results of the current telephone poll—conducted across the United
States by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc.—matched these concerns.
The results of the poll weren’t as clear-cut as my son’s response, but they did highlight some interesting points.
First off, synthetic biology is not on the radar for most people.
67% of the thousand people polled had never heard of the field, while a
mere 2% claimed they had heard a lot about it. Yet when asked whether
they thought the benefits would outweigh the risks (or vice versa), 60%
of people who had never previously heard of synthetic biology voiced an
opinion. That’s right—they didn’t know what it was, but they sure knew whether they liked it or not!
This has echoes of Dan Kahan’s work at the Cultural Cognition Project
at Yale Law School. Dan has shown previously that when people are
initially introduced to nanotechnology, their attitudes are driven by
an emotional response—their gut feeling. Such a gut-response to
nanotechnology is seen in the current poll. But in this case, more
people were willing to make an initial judgment on synthetic biology
than nanotechnology.
I mention Dan’s work because he found that when people leaned more
about nanotechnology, their opinions were heavily influenced by their
value systems; moral, political, religious, or otherwise; and not just
by the science. If this holds true for synthetic biology, people with
strong religious beliefs might be expected to respond differently to
more information on synbio than those less-inclined to a religious
perspective—the “Isn’t that against the Bible?” response.
To gauge poll participants’ informed responses to synthetic biology,
they were read two short paragraphs—one discussing its potential
benefits and the other discussing its potential risks (see the PEN report
for the paragraphs). The order in which these were read was randomly
rotated. Participants were then asked again whether they thought the
risks of synbio would be greater, the benefits greater, or whether the
two would be about equal.
I was particularly interested in this question of how religious
values affected people’s informed response. Delving into the data,
respondents who never attend religious services were ambivalent on the
risks and benefits of synthetic biology—there was no statistical
difference between the numbers of people who thought benefits would
outweigh risks, and vice versa. But people who attended
religious services once or more per week were on balance more likely to
feel that potential risks would dominate potential benefits.
Of course, it may be that this trend simply reflects a more
risk-averse attitude amongst the religiously active. But comparing the
synthetic biology data with the informed attitudes to nanotechnology
counters this suggestion. In the case of nanotechnology, people who
attended religious services once or more per week were ambivalent on
whether the risks and benefits of the technology would dominate, while
the religiously un-engaged clearly felt on balance that the benefits
outweighed the risks.
A similar comparison between attitudes toward synthetic biology and
nanotechnology was seen when poll subjects were separated out by
gender, education and income.
Men on balance felt the benefits of nanotechnology would outweigh the
risks, while women were on the fence. But when it came to synthetic
biology, men were on the fence, and on balance women felt the risks
would dominate.
College graduates anticipated the benefits of nanotechnology would
dominate the risks on balance, while people educated to high school or
less were ambivalent. For synbio, the graduates were undecided on
whether risks or benefits were greater, while on balance those who only
reached high school education or less thought the risks would be
greater.
People earning more than $75 thousand a year thought the benefits of
nanotechnology would be more significant on balance, while those
earning less than $30 thousand per year weren’t sure. In the case of
synthetic biology, the participants earning $75 thousand or more
weren’t so sure about risks and benefits, while those earning less than
$30 thousand were sure on balance that the risks would be greater.
Overall, there were plenty of people within each gender, education,
income and religious observance group who bucked the
trends—anticipating more benefits when the majority were expecting
higher risks, and vice versa. But the overall picture is one
of nanotechnology as an area where people are on balance either
ambivalent about risks and benefits or anticipating the benefits to
dominate, and synthetic biology as an area where people are either on
the fence or anticipating the risks to dominate.
This is critical information to anyone trying to chart a course to
successful and sustainable uses of synthetic biology. Clearly, there’s
something about the conjunction of “synthetic” and “biology” that
drives an emotive and values-driven response in people that isn’t seen
for nanotechnology. But what to do about this? If synthetic biology
is truly as important as its proponents believe, there’s a lot of work
to do ahead in engaging with people to help develop socially acceptable
applications.
Fortunately, this “new cool science” is still in its infancy, and
the opportunities to engage with “the public” are still there. But it
is growing up fast—The J. Craig Venter Institute is racing ahead
towards creating the first artificial bacteria, and “biohackers” are learning how to re-engineer life at an increasingly rapid pace.
Some deep soul-searching between synthetic biologists and the public
may not be in the making yet. But a serious heart to heart will be
needed sooner rather than later, if synbio is to reach its full
potential without major growing pains.