Public views on synthetic biology

30 May 2013

This report is a review of currently available information on the views and values of the public on synthetic biology. It provides a snapshot of public views and is a live document which will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence of public views emerges. The report will be useful to those interested in the publics views on new and emerging areas of science and technology and is particularly targeted to assist those involved in policy involving science and technology as they provide a background to what is already known about public views. The views and values of the public will change and new information will become available. Hence, we welcome your views, insights or comments. Do you know of further evidence which we should include? Do you have any comments or suggestions to improve the report?

You can comment here.

This report, and the others in the series, has been produced by Sciencewise. Sciencewise is a BIS funded programme to encourage the more widespread use of public dialogue in policy involving science and technology. Sciencewise provides advice and guidance to help those involved in the development of policy to understand and to take into account the views and values of the public in the development of policy involving science and technology. Sciencewise is able to provide: Advice and guidance on public dialogue and engagement. Assistance with the implementation of engagement as appropriate Financial support for the implementation of selected public dialogue projects Training and mentoring to assist those involved in policy development to build their understanding of the benefits and their confidence around engagement with the public.

Public views on synthetic biology

Table of contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 1 1 2 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 Public views................................................................................................................ 3 Analysis of views ....................................................................................................... 6
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 The overall message: uncertainty ...................................................................................... 6 Commonly held views ........................................................................................................ 7 Areas of uncertainty or diversity of views .......................................................................... 8 Possible influencing factors ............................................................................................... 8

4 5 6

Trends ......................................................................................................................... 9 Gap analysis ............................................................................................................... 9

5.1 The public and synthetic biology, March 2013 .................................................................. 9

References .................................................................................................................11

Appendix I Summary of public engagement activities related to synthetic biology since 2008 ...........................................................................................................................12

Public views on synthetic biology

Executive summary
This report summarises public views on the topic of synthetic biology across the past five years. It provides an analysis of key outcomes and trends; it also gives an overview of possible gaps in our current knowledge about what the public think of synthetic biology and why. Bringing together biologists and engineers, the emerging field of synthetic biology involves new and exciting technology. Synthetic biology involves the design and construction of new biological devices and systems for useful purposes, with potential applications spanning from improved drug delivery treatments to advances in the production of biofuels. This potentially revolutionary technology also introduces a number of major possible social, ethical and environmental risks and challenges, including bioterrorism, commercial monopolies, and the philosophical and religious concerns associated with creating artificial life. Though there has recently been a rapid rise in research activity, the field of synthetic biology is still in its infancy and there is currently low public awareness of the sector and its implications and applications. Focusing predominantly on the UK public dialogues which have been undertaken (incorporating data from UK and EU polling, and insights from stakeholder input, academic research and media reporting), an overarching theme of public uncertainty emerges. Commonly held views include: extremes; it is both exciting and scary the need for regulation and control which could keep up with developments in the sector synthetic biology could lead to the transgression of nature optimism is high: the technology presents solutions to some of the worlds major challenges the motivation of scientists in this sector has been questioned synthetic biology could produce big winners, and big losers given the sense that the public consider themselves powerless to influence the sciences more generally, scientists have a responsibility to consider the wider implications of their work

Interest in the field of synthetic biology is progressing at a rapid rate, and will continue to do so. Public dialogues, as well as stakeholder discussions and the UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap recognise that a key challenge will be one of regulation and how it keeps abreast of the developing technology. Such a challenge also applies to gathering, monitoring and responding to public views. Based upon the few dialogue and social research activities that have occurred we can confidently assert that at this stage the public are not generally aware of the technology and so have not formed strong views on its risks and benefits. However, the Royal Academy of Engineering and Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) dialogues both demonstrated that members of the public, given time and information, do have the ability to add value to policy discussions. Another key theme arising from the activities undertaken so far has been one of trust; in terms of scientists activities, stakeholders motives and the Governments ability to regulate this emerging sector. This has been recognised as important from within the synthetic biology community. The fast moving nature of the technology and its disruptive potential mean that attention should be paid to whether developments in the technology suggest an appropriate timescale for further public involvement in order that policy can take into account public views. There might also be room for ongoing engagement of some kind in order to identify emerging trends in public views and attitudes towards synthetic biology over a number of years. Gauging public reaction to potential emerging applications of synthetic biology and involving members of the public in early discussions about these applications could be an opportunity to build on the five key questions emerging from the BBSRC/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council dialogue by examining them in a more practical context. Understanding the differences in public opinion in relation to media coverage and consumption as synthetic biology develops may be an area for further consideration.

Public views on synthetic biology

1 Introduction
Bringing together biologists and engineers, the emerging field of synthetic biology involves new and exciting technology. The principles of technological manipulation of biology have been advocated since the beginning of the 20th Century. However, the widespread use of the term synthetic biology has only occurred since early 2000 as our understanding of complex biological systems and the falling cost of underpinning technologies such as gene sequencing and synthesis have allowed a paradigm shift our ability to engineer biology. As an emerging field, many definitions have been proposed, but the UK Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) use the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) definition which states that: Synthetic biology aims to design and engineer biologically based parts, novel devices and systems as well as redesigning existing, natural biological systems. Synthetic biology has many potential applications from improved drug delivery treatments to advances in the production of biofuels or even enhancing the ways in which underground minerals can 2 be mined . In fact, programmable manufacturing systems have an almost infinite number of potential applications and, as a result, have been suggested by some as paving the way for a new industrial 3 revolution . This new technology also introduces a number of major social, ethical and environmental risks and challenges, including the uncontrolled release of synthetic organisms, bioterrorism, commercial monopolies, and the philosophical and religious concerns associated with creating 4 artificial life . The UK Research Councils moved to address these issues through the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Councils (BBSRC) Bioscience for Society Panel, the Balmer & Martin 5 6 report on Social and Ethical Challenges and through a large scale public dialogue . There has recently been a rapid rise in research activity. Within Europe early stage funding for 18 synthetic biology research and policy projects has been provided by the EUs New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) programme. In the UK 90 million has been committed for synthetic biology through a number of programmes and networks predominantly funded by the BBSRC and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). In November 2012, the department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) announced it will be investing a further 20 million in the 7 8 sector ; a month later the newly established synthetic biology leadership council met for the first time . Given the many potential applications and significance of this technology, the TSB has highlighted 9 synthetic biology as an area which could offer strong growth potential for the UKs economy . Indeed, in March 2013, it was announced that a 5.3 million investment from the TSB, BBSRC and EPSRC 10 would help to fund 15 synthetic biology projects across the UK . A multidisciplinary community is 11 rapidly emerging via dedicated programmes and facilities . The UK is also playing a major role 12 internationally and, as a result, is recognised as leading for example with a series of recent symposia 13 involving other market leaders, China and the US , and with the BBSRC taking a leading role with the 14 13 European funding agencies as part of the ERA-NET in Synthetic Biology (ERASynBio) .
1

Including the design of interchangeable parts which can be assembled into pathways for the fabrication of novel components, the construction of entirely artificial cells and the creation of synthetic biomolecules. 2 Smith, C. (2013) Discovery in synthetic biology a step closer to new industrial revolution, Imperial College London. For more examples see www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Publications/1210-biology-by-design.pdf 3 Ibid. 4 Balmer, A. & Martin, P. (2008) Synthetic biology; social and ethical challenges, BBSRC/ University of Nottingham http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/0806_synthetic_biology.pdf
6 7

www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/dialogue/activities/synthetic-biology/synthetic-biology-index.aspx BIS Press Release (2012) http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-in-synthetic-biology-682fa.aspx [accessed 22 March 2013] 8 Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK www.gov.uk/governmentGovernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250-response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-foruk.pdf [accessed 22 March 2013] p.4 9 TSB (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK, UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group/RCUK, p.3 10 www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/research-technologies/2013/130307-pr-over-5m-in-leading-edgebioscience.aspx?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=March+2013
11

Such as the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation (CSBI) See: www3.imperial.ac.uk/syntheticbiology/about [accessed 22 March 2013] and the Synthetic Biology Special Interest Group (SynBioSIG), See: https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/synthetic-biology-special-interestgroup/overview [accessed 22 March 2013] and the Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN), See: https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/biosciencesktn/about-the-biosciences-ktn [accessed 22 March 2013] 12 Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK p.4 13 A blog summarising the London symposium can be found here: Bland, J. (2011) Six academies symposium: engineering principles http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposium-engineering-principles/ [accessed 22 March 2013] 14 See: www.erasynbio.net/ [accessed 22 March 2013]

Public views on synthetic biology

However, there are currently limited examples of the gathering of public views on synthetic biology and thus limited understanding of what these public views are. As a new and emerging field of technology, a parallel can be drawn with other technologies such as genetic modification (GM), nanotechnology and software engineering. In this light, the evolution of public opinion towards this emerging sector is of great interest to the scientific community and policy makers alike, as reflected in 15 current stakeholder discussions . It is worth noting that the different activities of public engagement on this topic would have all had different methodologies and aims. As such, many of the nuances of the outcomes or particular reasoning behind using different methodologies will not be captured in this report, which instead focuses on a high level account of public views summarised across the various different engagement methodologies used.

2 Public views
As a new, emerging field there is relatively little evidence on the views of the UK public with respect to synthetic biology. Only two public dialogues have been conducted, supplemented by some UK-based and Europe-wide polling. However, civil society, stakeholder and academic communities are interested in, and concerned by, the potential public reaction to aspects of synthetic biology, and a number of studies, conferences and symposia have addressed these concerns. Due to the relative scarcity of public research, civil society, stakeholder and US-related activities have been included in the selection of sources for this report, all of which are listed in Appendix I. There is much academic literature on the topic of synthetic biology, which is not reflected here, given the focus of this report. This report also does not attempt any detailed comparison of how the public view synthetic biology compared to other technological developments. This would require further research to reach any comprehensive conclusions. Focusing predominantly on the UK public dialogues which have been undertaken, (but also incorporating data from UK, EU and US polling, as well as insights from stakeholder discussions, academic research and media reporting), a number of key themes emerge: 1. Synbio is not in the public domain Public dialogue projects have shown that despite the public viewing the capabilities of scientists as 16 amazing or extraordinary , participants felt unable to engage in how new technologies worked and 17 felt they are kept in the dark about developments and only shown the positive sides of science . A public dialogue study undertaken in 2009 found only a third of respondents had heard of synthetic biology. While only 3% had heard a lot about synthetic biology, a further fifth (19%) in the UK said that they had heard a little, while another 10% said that they had heard the term but did not know what it 18 meant . This was mirrored in Europe-wide polling in 2010, which showed that a very large majority 19 (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology (Figure 1) .

15

Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date in Biosciences, 4, LSE, p.307. It is worth noting that the former Government Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, is on record as saying that the estimated cost to the economy of the controversy over GM food crops has amounted to a billion pounds a year in lost revenue to UK plc. See: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/115/7120504.htm
16 17

www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/1006-synthetic-biology-dialogue.pdf Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, prepared by TNS-BMRB, p.28 18 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, prepared by People, Science and Policy Ltd, p.18 19 TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, European Commission/TNS Opinion and Social, pp.124-5

Public views on synthetic biology Figure 1: 2010 statistics on European public awareness of synthetic biology (from Eurobarometer 73.1: Biotechnology)

A poll about attitudes to science held in 2011 asked about the risks and benefits attached to synthetic biology, to which 35% of the public responded that they didnt know en ough to answer the question, with 87% feeling uninformed about the technology generally (see Figure 2). A 2012 European Commission-funded study into the potential for public controversy in light of the GM experience reasoned that the public do not necessarily have a clear understanding of synthetic 21 biology, which was linked with the lack of information about the field in the public domain . However, this may not be surprising given the lack of a clear definition of the field, and this also does not mean that the public necessarily have to be highly informed to add value to the debate; evaluation of various projects funded by Sciencewise showed that the public are able to add value to policy discussions and 22 understand complex scientific areas .

20

20 21

Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, Ipsos-MORI, pp.25-6, pp.31-2 European Commission (2012) Synthetic biologys potential controversy assessed, News Alert Issue 288: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdf [accessed 22 March 2013] 22 www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publications/Sciencewise-Evaluation-Report-FINAL.pdf

Public views on synthetic biology Figure 2: 2011 statistics on UK public awareness of science topics (from Ipsos-MORI Public Attitudes Towards Science Report)

2. The public have high hopes for the possibilities presented by synthetic biology Particularly in the field of medicine, dialogue activities have demonstrated that the public view 23 synthetic biology as having tremendous potential to overcome serious diseases and injuries . Participants also considered the potential of the technology in terms of replacement (e.g. developing 24 new materials, including those that were in short supply, such as fuels) . Participants in dialogue activities also expressed a hope that the technology could be used to create wealth and improve the UKs economic competitiveness. Participants demonstrated pri de in the 25 knowledge that British researchers would be pioneers in this new area . The status of Britain as a leading research base has also received some mention in the UK press, particularly following the 26 London-based 2011 international symposium on synthetic biology . 3. The public have concerns over the control and regulation of synthetic biology The urgent need for effective international regulation and control was one of the most important issues 27 identified by participants in the 2010 BBSRC/EPSRC public dialogue . These findings were notable in the 2009 dialogue study by RAEng and the 2010 European opinion poll study in which concerns were also raised as to how governments could feasibly control synthetic biology and whether they could 28 keep up with the rapid speed of development . Prominent concerns also existed around the likely potential for large corporations to patent developments and create monopolies. Participants argued 29 that this could potentially maintain dependence of developing countries on the West . The issue of regulation has also been highlighted by some elements of the civil society community, led by Friends of the Earth in the US, in a report entitled Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology . The report argues that the lack of specific regulations in respect to synthetic biology is damaging to

23 24 25

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.26 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.20 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.34 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.32 26 Sample, I. (2011) How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public? the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-china [accessed 23 March 2013] 27 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.8 28 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.7 and TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.7 29 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.11

Public views on synthetic biology

public participation and transparency and provides no recourse in the case of public health accidents, 30 environmental disruption or economic harms . 4. Misuse of this technology is a potential concern Concerns around the misuse of synthetic biology, for example with regards to bioterrorism, have arisen in previous studies. In the 2009 RAEng study, participants did focus on this as an issue, but 31 highlighted the fact that bioweapons such as anthrax were already available . In the 2010 BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue, participants showed concern that new diseases, pathogens and viruses could be deliberately created by individuals or organisations with access to such technology, with the report stating while participants generally noted there were probably easier ways to mount a

terrorist attack than using synthetic biology; there was a concern that as the field advanced this could become a real issue32.
Such concerns have been replicated in the stakeholder community which cites the potential for 33 efficient, rapid synthesis of viral and other pathogen genomes . There has also been wide coverage of such security concerns in the media dating back to 2005, when synthetic biologists recreated the 34 Spanish flu virus that killed 50 million . 5. There are concerns for the environmental and health impact of synthetic biology All of the dialogue studies and opinion polls found that a section of the public have concerns around playing God. The BBSRC study found that, despite participants finding it difficult to articulate these 35 concerns, many felt uncomfortable about the ability to create living entities . Such concerns echo 36 public attitudes towards GM as going against nature, a comparison which has not been lost on 37 many stakeholders and academics in the field . These ethical concerns were replicated in the 38 European and US polls . Similarly, broad concerns have been raised over the possibility of environmental contamination through the uncontrolled release of synthetic organisms, the effects of 39 which were understood to be unpredictable and potentially far-reaching .

3 Analysis of views
Firstly, it is worth pointing out that many of the messages emerging in this report may well be reflective of public views about other new or emerging science and technology topics, for example particularly where the definitions or precise applications are uncertain, and the terminology complex. The degree to which views on synthetic biology are comparable or not to other similar emerging or new technologies is outside the scope of this report, but is worth consideration by way of context for the analysis below.

3.1 The overall message: uncertainty

The overarching message arising from dialogue projects and opinion polls is that the public do not currently feel that they can fully assess the implications and applications of this new technology, which is hardly surprising given its relative infancy: People surveyed in opinion polls felt they were not sufficiently informed to weigh up the risks 40 and benefits of synthetic biology

30

Friends of the Earth US, International centre for Technology Assessment & ETC Group (2011) Draft principles for the oversigh t of synthetic biology http://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Principles-for-the-oversight-of-synthetic-biology-web-2.pdf [accessed on 8th March 2013], p.4. This report has also received some coverage in the press: See Marris, C. & Rose, M. (2012) Lets get real on synthetic biology, New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.html [accessed 8th March 2013] 31 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.30 32 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.9 33 Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology in Syst Synth Biology, 2(1-2), pp.717 34 Sample, I. (2005) Security fears as flu virus that killed 50 million is recreated the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3 [accessed 23 March 2013] 35 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.39 36 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.25 37 Miller, B. (2011) Does synthetic biology need a new PR campaign? and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date p.306 38 TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.7 and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology, produced by Peter D Hart Research Associates, p.10 39 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.34. Also raised in: Friends of the Earth US, International centre for Technology Assessment & ETC Group (2011) Draft principles for the oversight of synthetic biology, p.6 40 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, pp.25-6,

Public views on synthetic biology

There was a sense of uncertainty emerging from more in depth dialogue, both in terms of what synthetic biology could do and where it was going, , both across public participants and 41 stakeholders

One of the outcomes of the BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue was that members of the public felt there was an ongoing requirement for engagement as the technology develops, particularly for research councils to explain how some of the conditions participants placed on research have been met. However, stakeholder and academic communities are uncertain about how to engage with the public; though there is unanimous agreement that the public need to be 42 engaged . The stakeholder, academic and policy circles are also uncertain if a major public 43 outcry may occur as with GM in the late 1990s and early 2000s However, the overall message of uncertainty arising from public engagement activities must be viewed in context. While it is true that synthetic biology is an area the public feel particularly uninformed about, when questioned about science and scientific research developments more generally nearly half of the 44 public claimed to feel uninformed . There are in fact some clear views emerging with respect to synthetic biology, as outlined below.

3.2 Commonly held views

The general public reaction to synthetic biology can be seen as one of extremes; it is both 45 exciting and scary The need for regulation and control which could keep up with developments in the sector 46 was flagged up as highly important by participants in dialogue studies The conflict between the meanings of the terms synthetic and biology was difficult for some, 47 evoking images of living things as artificial which made members of the public uneasy . This is related to a common concern that synthetic biology could lead to the transgression of 48 nature Optimism is high: the public see synthetic biology as presenting solutions to some of the worlds major challenges, including food shortages, climate change, energy needs and 49 diseases . Similarly, the public have viewed synthetic biology as an area of science which operates on a societal, mass level as opposed to an individual, personal level (notwithstanding the fact that this may change if more personalised applications of synthetic biology develop, 50 such as in the field of medicine) The motivation of scientists in this sector was questioned. Members of the public were 51 concerned that in the quest for knowledge important things could be overlooked . Indeed, the BBSRC dialogue led to the public formulating five central questions for synthetic biology researchers: o What is the purpose? o Why do you want to do it? o What are you going to gain from it? o What else is it going to do? o How do you know you are right? (ie how to do you know that what you are doing is ethical?)

41

RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.18 and Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.28 42 Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date p.309 43 Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date p.307 44 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.30 45 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.32 46 Ibid, pp.40-44 47 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.40 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, pp.19-20 48 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.40 49 Ibid, p.36 50 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.21 51 Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.37, Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.74

Public views on synthetic biology

That synthetic biology could produce big winners, and big losers. Big business was seen as a likely winner which may undermine the potential to reduce social inequalities with this 52 technology That scientists had a responsibility to consider the wider implications of their work. This has been connected to a sense that the public considered themselves powerless to influence the sciences more generally, thus requiring scientists to keep the public interest in mind when 53 undertaking research

3.3 Areas of uncertainty or diversity of views

Survey respondents to the RAEng public dialogue revealed a difference in attitude between the 54 modification and creation of micro-organisms . In the survey element of the RAEng process, more of the respondents (46%) disagreed rather than agreed (24%) with the statement re-designing an existing micro-organism so that it produces medicines and biofuels should not be allowed. However, this is les s than the 63% who supported the statement creating new man-made micro-organisms that will produce medicines or biofuels should be supported

The dialogue participants indicated that there was more support for the creation of completely artificial organisms, partially because these were perceived to have less chance of survival in the event of an accidental release The GM public outcry seems to be at the forefront for much of the stakeholder, academic and policy 55 communities when discussing public engagement The public views coming out of public dialogues would appear to conform to these concerns, with GM being mentioned regularly and in a negative light when discussing the potential uses and regulation of synthetic biology. However, it is not clear to what degree the GM experience will be replicated for the field of synthetic biology and if these fears are well-founded A declaration, led by Friends of the Earth in the US has strongly criticised the way this 56 emerging technology is being developed

3.4 Possible influencing factors

How informed the public feel towards new technologies like synthetic biology is linked to information sources. People who mostly find their information about science in traditional media like television or newspapers are among the least informed (37% and 41% respectively), while those that get most of their information online, either via science blogs or other websites, are more likely to feel informed (71% and 55% respectively). More generally, those with access to the Internet tend to feel 57 more informed than those without . The findings from the Ipsos-MORI poll have been echoed by the opinion poll carried out by TNS on behalf of the European Commission in 2010 which showed that levels of awareness of synthetic biology among daily Internet users was higher than those who used 58 the Internet less regularly, if at all . Engagement with and knowledge of science issues may relate to media coverage . A 2010 poll conducted by Ipsos-Mori showed that relatively new technologies such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology came bottom of the table in terms of how informed respondents felt. Contrastingly, respondents felt far more informed about other areas such as nuclear power and GM, areas which 59 have garnered far more media coverage in the past decade . Recent media coverage in late 2012 and early 2013, may indirectly indicate a growing level of awareness of synthetic biology. A sense of uncertainty prevails. As summarised earlier in this section, the overall message arising from recent research into public attitudes towards synthetic biology in the UK is one of uncertainty. As

52 53 54

Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, p.38 Ibid, p.41 and RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.22 RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology, p.6 55 Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717 and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date pp.306-7 56 www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-03-global-coalition-calls-oversight-synthetic-biology 57 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.31 58 TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.125 59 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report, p.32

Public views on synthetic biology

noted in the evaluation of BBSRC/EPSRCs public dialogue carried out ten months after the original study, many participants held on to a number of misconceptions and remained uncertain and 60 unconfident about the technology, and their own ability to assess its risks and benefits . Public concerns related to regulation havent changed over time . Prominent in both the RAE public dialogue of 2009, the BBSRC public dialogue of 2010 and the BBSRC public dialogue evaluation of 2011, is the way in which the public associate synthetic biology as a technology which 61 could be thought of as going against nature . Related to this issue for many of the participants was the need for strict regulation of the sector, though doubts were repeatedly expressed about the feasibility of a regulatory system being put in place which could keep up with the rapid development of the technology. Demographics: Gender may affect level of awareness and attitudes towards synthetic biology. Ipsos-MORI research shows that despite the level of awareness of synthetic biology being low for both 62 genders, women tend to feel less informed than men (minus 81% and minus 75% respectively) . This appears to be similar to some other areas of science such as nanotechnology, but different to others such as climate change and clinical trials. Approval ratings also varied according to gender, with 44% 63 of men approving in the TNS poll, compared to 36% of women , such findings were echoed the UK64 based Ipsos-MORI poll . Again, this appears to vary depending on the area of science and technology being asked about rather than being consistent across all areas. Demographics: Higher social grades may view synthetic biology in a more positive light. When asked to weigh the benefits and risks of synthetic biology, respondents from higher social grades viewed the net benefits as outweighing the risks far more than those from lower social grades (27% 65 and 13% respectively) .

4 Trends
Given that synthetic biology is a new technology and that research into public views is understandably in its infancy, identifying trends across a short period of time risks placing excessive importance on small differences between public dialogues over a two year period. Due to the lack of data on public views trends can therefore not be confidently identified at this stage.

5 Gap analysis
5.1 The public and synthetic biology, March 2013
Interest in the field of synthetic biology is progressing at a rapid rate, and will continue to do so. Public 66 dialogues, as well as stakeholder discussions and the current Synthetic Biology Roadmap recognise that a key challenge will be one of regulation and how this is to keep abreast of the developing technology. Such a challenge also applies to the gathering and monitoring of public views, a challenge which scientists and stakeholders have already recognised as urgently required. Indeed, one of the outcomes of the BBSRC dialogue was that members of the public felt there was an ongoing requirement for engagement as the technology develops. Based upon the few dialogue and social research activities that have occurred we can confidently assert that at this stage the public do not have a strong grasp of the technology and its risks and benefits, although the RAEng and BBSRC/EPSRC dialogues both demonstrated that members of the public, given time and information, do have the ability to add value to policy discussions. Another key theme arising from the activities undertaken so far has been one of trust; in terms of scientists activities, stakeholders motives and the Governments ability to regulate this emerging sector. This 67 has been recognised as important from within the synthetic biology community .

60

Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011), Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, prepared by Laura Grant Associates, pp.18-19 61 Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011), Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, p.19 62 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, Ipsos-MORI, p.98 63 TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, p.132 64 Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, p.155 65 Ibid, p.155 66 UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdf 67 Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. And Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology pp.717 and Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date pp.306-7

Public views on synthetic biology

Current policy development in response to public dialogue The BBSRC/EPSRC evaluation points to four areas in which the BBSRC/EPSRC public dialogue appears to have led to a shift in policy, including: It has provided impetus to take public concerns about synthetic biology to regulators via discussions with the Chief Scientific Advisor It has catalysed and informed EPSRCs work on responsible innovation by linking to the 69 dialogue through the Societal Issues Panel The BBSRC has reviewed the way in which researchers making grant applications address social and ethical issues as a direct result of the dialogue, which in turn has created opportunities for the public engagement team to collaborate with colleagues that work on research funding It prompted an RCUK proposal to Sciencewise to fund research that draws together the findings across dialogues in areas of emerging technology
68

The fast moving nature of the technology and its disruptive potential means that attention should be paid to whether developments in the technology suggest an appropriate time for further public involvement in order that policy can take into account public views. The BBSRC dialogue concluded that the public wanted to continue to be involved and informed, and the RAEng dialogue identified a number of specific areas where further exploration might be useful. There might also be room for ongoing engagement of some kind in order to identify emerging trends in public views and attitudes towards synthetic biology over a number of years. Gauging public reaction to potential emerging applications of synthetic biology and involving members of the public in early discussions about these applications could be an opportunity to build on the five key questions emerging from the BBSRC/EPSRC dialogue by examining them in a more practical context. Understanding the differences in public opinion in relation to media coverage and consumption as the area of synthetic biology develops may be an area for further consideration.

68 69

Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011), Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, p.38 http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/frriict/

10

Public views on synthetic biology

6 References
Balmer, A. & Martin, P. (2008) Synthetic biology; social and ethical challenges, BBSRC/ University of Nottingham BIS Press Release (2012) http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Government-to-invest-20-million-insynthetic-biology-682fa.aspx [accessed 22 March 2013] Bland, J. (2011) Six academies symposium: engineering principles, http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2011/04/15/six-academies-synthetic-biology-symposiumengineering-principles/ [accessed 22 March 2013] European Commission (2012) Synthetic biologys potential controversy assessed, News Alert Issue 288: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/288na5.pdf [accessed 22 March 2013] Friends of the Earth US, ICTA & ETC Group (2011) The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology:www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6620/_draft/principles_for_the_oversight_of_synth etic_biology.pdf [accessed on 22 March 2013] Global Information. Press Release (2011) Global Value of Synthetic Biology Market to Reach $10.8 Billion in 2016 www.giiresearch.com/press/bc224398.shtml [accessed 22 March 2013] Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011 main report , Ipsos-MORI Ipsos-MORI/BIS (2011) Public attitudes to science 2011: computer tables, Ipsos-MORI Lentzos, F. (2009) Synthetic biology in the social context: the UK debate to date in Biosciences, 4, LSE Marris, C. & Rose, M. (2012) Lets get real on synthetic biology, New Scientist: www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428684.800-lets-get-real-on-synthetic-biology.html [accessed 22 March 2013] Miller, B. (2011) Does synthetic biology need a new PR campaign? in A Global Village, Issue 3 Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology, produced by Peter D Hart Research Associates. RAE (2009) Synthetic biology; public dialogue on synthetic biology , prepared by People, Science and Policy Ltd Research Councils(BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2011), Synthetic biology dialogue: follow up report, prepared by Laura Grant Associates Research Councils (BBSRC, EPSRC) and Sciencewise-ERC (2010) Synthetic biology dialogue report, prepared by TNS-BMRB Sample, I. (2011) How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public? the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/14/synthetic-biology-pathogens-china [accessed 22 March 2013] Sample, I. (2005) Security fears as flu virus that killed 50 million is recreated the Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/06/health.medicineandhealth3 [accessed 22 March 2013] Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A. and Biller-Adorno, N., (2008) SYNBIOSAFE e-conference in Syst Synth Biology, 2(1-2), pp.717 Smith, C. (2013) Discovery in synthetic biology a step closer to new industrial revolution , Imperial College London TNS Opinion and Social (2010) Eurobarometer 73.1; biotechnology, European Commission/TNS Opinion and Social TSB (2012) A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK, UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group/RCUK, p.3 UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdf

11

Public views on synthetic biology

Willets, D. (2012) Response to A synthetic biology roadmap for the UK www.gov.uk/governmentGovernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34678/12-1250response-to-synthetic-biology-roadmap-for-uk.pdf [accessed 22 March 2013]

12

Public views on synthetic biology

Appendix I Summary of public engagement activities related to synthetic biology since 2008
Type of Public Research
Poll

Produced/ Delivered Title by

Science and Technology Awareness and Innovation Program at Impressions of the Woodrow Wilson Synthetic Biology International Center for Scholars and Peter D. Hart Research Associates

Date Method/ Focus

2013 Nationwide telephone survey among 804 adults in the USA, exploring attitudes toward the entities involved in the oversight of new scientific and technological advances, awareness of nanotechnology, and awareness of and attitudes toward synthetic biology, and impressions of potential applications of synthetic biology 2012 Reports on the need for more nuance in the public discussion of synthetic biology

Media Reporting New Scientist

Let's get real on synthetic biology

Civil Society Policy Document for Public Dissemination Academic Research

Friends of the Earth The Principles for the 2012 Drafted through a collaborative U.S., International Oversight of process among civil society groups, Center for Technology Synthetic Biology including a number of UK Assessment, ETC Group organisations European Commission Synthetic biologys 2012 Assessment of the potential for social potential controversy and political conflict to synthetic assessed biology by drawing comparisons with the controversy surrounding genetic modification (GM) in the 1990s

Media Reporting The Guardian

How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public?

2011 Discusses how scientists can maintain public support in this area, raising issues around human cloning, killer pathogens and a potential UK-China collaboration

Opinion Poll

Ipsos-MORI/ BIS/BSA

Public Attitudes to Science 2011

2011 Ipsos MORI carried out 2,103 interviews with UK adults aged 16+ from 11 October to 19 December 2010 including deliberative workshops with members of the general public in four locations: London, Beverley, Birmingham and Cardiff Questions on synthetic biology were limited to multiple choice questions concerning: the publics perceived risks and benefits of the technology, how informed the public felt about the technology

Blog Post

A Global Village- Online newsletter/journal

Does Synthetic 2011 Post written by Imperial College Biology Need A New London student PR Campaign?

12

Public views on synthetic biology Opinion Poll TNS/ European Commission Eurobarometer 73.1: 2010 Between 29 January and 17 February Biotechnology 2010, TNS Opinion & Social carried out the Eurobarometer, on request of the European Commission, focusing on European public opinions towards different types of Biotechnologies It covers the population of the respective nationalities of the EU Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multistage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density

Public Dialogue

BBSRC, EPSRC, Sciencewise

Synthetic Biology Dialogue

2010 Findings based on a series of public workshops and stakeholder interviews on the science and issues surrounding synthetic biology. An evaluation of this study, including follow-up questions for participants, was carried out in 2011

Public Dialogue

RAEng

Synthetic Biology: Public dialogue on synthetic biology

2009 Findings based on a dialogue activity with 16 members of the public, and a nationwide representative survey of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over

Academic Paper LSE

Synthetic Biology in the Social Context

2009 This article provides a summary of some of the main events and discussions that have taken place in the UK over the last few months on socio-political aspects of synthetic biology

US Opinion Poll Hart Research Associates

Awareness of and 2008 A nationwide (US) survey among 1,003 Attitudes toward adults about awareness of and Nanotechnology and attitudes toward both nanotechnology Synthetic Biology and synthetic biology Two focus group sessions were conducted in Baltimore, Maryland, August 2008, among adultsone among women and one among men to explore both unaided and informed impressions of synthetic biology. The structure of the RAEng study of 2009 was heavily influenced by this study

Academic/ Stakeholder Research

Synbiosafe (funded by European Commission)

SYNBIOSAFE econference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology

2008 As part of the SYNBIOSAFE project, an open e-conference was carried out, with the aim to stimulate an open debate on the societal implications of synthetic biology. The e-conference attracted 124 registered participants from 23 different countries and different professional backgrounds, who made 182 contributions in six

13

Public views on synthetic biology different categories including public perception Those selected for invitation were primarily from participant lists from major SB related conferences, notably SB2.0 (Berkeley, May 2006), SB3.0 (Zurich, 06/2007), the ESF conference on SB (ECSB) (Barcelona, 11/2007) the joint Visionary Seminar of Leuven. Inc and IMEC (Leuven, 11/2007) and the list of 38 NGOs that signed the petition letter against the SB 2.0 selfgovernance declaration

14