Dynamics of problem setting and framing in citizen discussions on synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is an emerging scientific field where engineers and biologists design and build biological systems for various applications. Developing synthetic biology responsibly in the public interest necessitates a meaningful societal dialogue. In this article, we argue that facilitating such a dialogue requires an understanding of how people make sense of synthetic biology. We performed qualitative research to unravel the underlying dynamics of problem setting and framing in citizen discussions on synthetic biology. We found that most people are not inherently for or against synthetic biology as a technology or development in itself, but that their perspectives are framed by core values about our relationships with science and technology and that sensemaking is much dependent on the context and general feelings of (dis)content. Given that there are many assumptions focused on a more binary idea of the public’s view, we emphasize the need for frame awareness and understanding in a meaningful dialogue.

[1]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[2]  J. Sim,et al.  Focus Groups in Physiotherapy Evaluation and Research , 1996 .

[3]  S. Jasanoff.  States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[4]  F. Al-Shamali,et al.  Author Biographies. , 2015, Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation.

[5]  F. Wickson,et al.  Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology , 2011 .

[6]  Alexander Bogner,et al.  The Paradox of Participation Experiments , 2012 .

[7]  Ghislaine M. Lawrence.  The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology , 1989, Medical History.

[8]  A. J. Waarlo,et al.  Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective , 2014 .

[9]  Noelle Aarts,et al.  Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding , 2002 .

[10]  Helge Torgersen,et al.  Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve? , 2013, Futures.

[11]  R. King.  Deliberative Democracy and the Environment , 2005 .

[12]  A. Vaidya,et al.  Translational synthetic biology , 2015, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[13]  F. Allan Hanson,et al.  The Technological Society , 1965 .

[14]  C. Midden,et al.  Knowledge use and political choice in Dutch environmental policy : A problem structuring perspective on real life experiments in extended peer review , 2001 .

[15]  S. Seitz.  Let’s Talk About… Synthetic Biology—Emerging Technologies and the Public , 2016 .

[16]  Emmy Bergsma,et al.  Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands , 2010 .

[17]  D. Haraway,et al.  A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century , 2013 .

[18]  Marcel Urner,et al.  Frame Reflection Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies , 2016 .

[19]  Claire Marris,et al.  Open Engagement: Exploring Public Participation in the Biosciences , 2010, PLoS biology.

[20]  Ahmad S. Khalil,et al.  Synthetic biology: applications come of age , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[21]  Peter Dabrock,et al.  Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge , 2009, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[22]  Mads Borup,et al.  The sociology of expectations in science and technology , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[23]  Arie Rip,et al.  Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology , 2007 .

[24]  H. van den Belt,et al.  Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life , 2009, Nanoethics.

[25]  F. Kupper,et al.  Deliberating Animal Values: a Pragmatic—Pluralistic Approach to Animal Ethics , 2011 .

[26]  Antoine Danchin,et al.  Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words , 2008, EMBO reports.

[27]  I. Barns,et al.  “What Do You Think about Genetic Medicine?” Facilitating Sociable Public Discourse on Developments in the New Genetics , 2000, Science, technology & human values.

[28]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[29]  Kees Dorst,et al.  The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application , 2011 .

[30]  Dirk Stemerding,et al.  Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation , 2013, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[31]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach , 2004, Science, technology & human values.

[32]  H. Torgersen,et al.  Different ways of problematising biotechnology – and what it means for technology governance , 2015, Public understanding of science.