Public dialogue on synthetic biology

Background and context

This report presents the findings of an exploratory public dialogue project, commissioned by the Royal Academy of Engineering (the Academy) and conducted by People Science and Policy Ltd (PSP) to explore uninformed and informed perceptions of and attitudes to synthetic biology in the UK. To our knowledge, this is the UK’s first public dialogue on synthetic biology.

Synthetic biology is an emerging multidisciplinary research area that is underpinned by both engineering and science. It aims to design and engineer biologically based parts, novel devices and systems as well as redesigning existing, natural biological systems. As with any new technology, it brings both potential benefits and societal, ethical and regulatory implications.

This study was carried out to complement the Academy’s inquiry into synthetic biology, published in May 2009 (www.raeng.org.uk/synbio) which recommended that:

“an active and ongoing public engagement programme must be established which creates platforms for various stakeholders and publics to share their views on both the potential benefits of synthetic biology and their concerns as the technology develops”.

This report gives an early and preliminary insight into public perceptions and reactions to synthetic biology and reveals some issues and themes worthy of further exploration. The findings also provide a baseline measure of awareness in the UK which will be useful for comparing changes over time.

Methodology

The research comprised two strands, the first of which was an exploratory dialogue activity with 16 members of the public attending two evening meetings at the Academy’s offices in London. The public dialogue activity provided an opportunity to begin exploring people’s perceptions, aspirations and concerns on the development of synthetic biology.

The second strand was a telephone omnibus survey of 1,000 adults in the UK, which included three questions and three attitude statements. This quantitative survey was designed to provide a representative early insight of awareness and attitudes to synthetic biology, at a national level, as well as to provide context to, and verify, some of the dialogue findings.

Throughout this report we refer to those who took part in the dialogue meetings as participants and those who were interviewed for the quantitative survey as respondents.

Where appropriate the findings are compared with those from the US study Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology conducted in 2008 for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars1 .

Awareness, perceptions and understandings – participants and respondents

Awareness of synthetic biology in the UK is low. None of the 16 public dialogue participants had heard the term ‘synthetic biology’ along with two thirds of the nationally representative survey respondents (which is identical to the US study). One in three people in the UK said they had heard of synthetic biology, but only 3% had heard ‘a lot’, (19%) said that they had heard ‘a little’, with another 10% saying that they had heard the term but did not know what it meant.

The most common survey response to the question ‘What words come to mind when I say synthetic biology?’, was “don’t know” or “nothing” (49%) which corresponds with the low level of awareness. The second most common reply was a set of words relating to “artificial”, “unnatural” and “man-made”, with nearly one in seven (13%) giving this response. The third most commonly cited words related to genetics, cloning and embryos (9%). This matches well with the word associations provided by the dialogue participants.

The participants also mentioned “replacement” in the sense of tissues, organs and limbs such as “new [heart] valves and things like that” or “artificial legs”. Similar responses were mentioned by 6% of the survey respondents, when asked ‘What do you think synthetic biology might be?’.

The survey showed that only 4% of respondents associated the term synthetic biology to manipulating nature in some way, while 3% felt it had something to do with creating life.

The dialogue participants had some difficulty in understanding the concept of synthetic biology at first. Participants were initially more likely to equate it with tissue transformation (more similar to stem-cell technology), but there were few associations with genetic modification. This is perhaps due to the focus of the synthetic biology applications that were presented being on fuels and medicine, rather than food.

Attitudes to modifying and creating life – participants and respondents

Creating life was seen as “very futuristic”, “exciting” and “more exciting than destroying life” by most of the dialogue participants. Over six out of ten (63%) survey respondents agreed with the statement ‘creating new man-made micro-organisms that will produce medicines or biofuels should be supported’, with a third (33%) agreeing strongly.

Survey respondents revealed an apparent difference in attitude between the creation and modification of micro-organisms. More of the survey 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 less than the 63% who supported the statement regarding the creation of new man-made organisms, mentioned above. 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.

It should be highlighted that where support for the notion of creating new life was shown, it was in the context of micro-organisms which could be designed to produce useful products. Dialogue discussions indicated that one factor for this support could be that these organisims were not seen to be ‘alive’. Furthermore, there were no objections to using yeast and bacteria as a means of production, indeed, participants noted that this already happens (for example, bread making).

However, with regard to creating or modifying higher-life forms and humans by synthetic biology, the dialogue participants were not at all supportive. About four in ten (39%) respondents agreed with the statement: ‘The idea of creating man-made micro-organisms is worrying’. Thus while there was a majority positive response to the concepts of creating and modifying micro-organisms to produce medicines and biofuels, there is still some concern over the technology.

Views on the development of synthetic biology - participants

The dialogue participants were largely supportive of the idea of micro-organisms being engineered to live in controlled conditions, such as vats to create products like drugs or biofuel, and were able to accept the risks associated with the possibility of accidental release. However, some were extremely resistant to the concept of these organisms being deliberately released into the environment for bioremediation purposes, because of the unknown consequences. Some participants were also concerned that the side effects from drugs produced using synthetic biology processes might be different from drugs produced using other methods.

Bioterrorism was not spontaneously considered, but the stimulus information provided in the meetings did raise this issue on a number of occasions. On balance, the participants felt that the potential benefits of synthetic biology for society outweighed the risks. Regarding open access and so-called ‘garage biology’, some participants felt that synthetic biology should only be conducted in professional laboratories and not in unstructured or unregulated environments, even if the research was aimed to be for public good. It was felt that otherwise this would result in poor quality, and possibly harmful, synthetic biology products being sold via the internet (for example, untested drugs).

Participants wanted regulation but were concerned that regulations should not stifle development. Concerns were also raised as to whether the Government could control synthetic biology and especially whether it could keep up with the speed of development.

Despite some hostility towards the idea of patenting, there was a belief that investors are entitled to a return on their time and money. However, there was a sense that there should be a balance between returns on investment and social responsibility.

Participant priorities, recommendations and expectations

The majority of participants prioritised the development of biofuels over medical uses, as this application was deemed to impact on more people. The application with the least support was development of synthetic biology for bioremediation because it involves deliberate release into the environment.

Control, safety, regulation and testing of both synthetic biology production methods and their products were seen as paramount.

Generally, it was expected that the media would react negatively and participants recommended that scientists work to raise public awareness. They also thought it was important for other members of the public to keep an open mind and not be unduly swayed by media reports.

Government funding was thought to be important, not only because participants believed that this was a field worthy of further development, but also because this would give the Government influence over developments.

Further research

A number of different themes emerged that would be worthy of further exploration:

  1. How people determine whether something is alive and whether micro-organisms are seen to be alive.
  2. Further exploration of philosophical questions surrounding the creation of ‘new life’ with other groups (for example, religious groups).
  3. Why there appear to be different reactions to modifying existing organisms and the creation of new ones.
  4. The apparent differences in opinion between men and women and between age groups.
  5. Regional differences in attitudes across the UK, as well as a comparison of those from rural and urban locations.
  6. How and if people view this technology as different to that of ‘GM’ and why.

1. Peter D Hart Research Associates Inc (2008) “Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology”, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars