Public Understanding of Synthetic Biology

The objective of this article is not to draw exhaustive conclusions about public perceptions of synthetic biology but to provide readers with an integrated review of the findings from 4 years of quantitative and qualitative research conducted on this subject in the United States. US public perceptions toward synthetic biology are ambivalent. Members of the public show enthusiasm for synthetic biology applications when those applications are developed to address societal, medical, and sustainability needs, whereas engineering biology is seen as a potential concern if this research is done without investigations of its potential risks and long-term implications. Members of the public also support funding for research that leads to applications that actually meet social and sustainability goals. When it comes to oversight, their priorities are to promote transparency and accountability and to ensure a form of tailored governance in which diverse knowledge sources help address the uncertainty surrounding new technologies.

[1]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[2]  Andrew J. Knight.  Does Application Matter? An Examination of Public Perception of Agricultural Biotechnology Applications , 2006 .

[3]  Renato Schibeci,et al.  Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology , 1997 .

[4]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Wising up : the public and new technologies , 2000 .

[5]  I. Fischhoff,et al.  Publics' Opinions About Biotechnologies , 2001 .

[6]  Elof Axel Carlson.  Biology is Technology: The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life . By Robert H. Carlson . Cambridge (Massachusetts) : Harvard University Press. $39.95. vii + 279 p.; ill.; index. 978‐0‐674‐03544‐7 . 2010 . , 2010 .

[7]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy , 2006 .

[8]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  US public opinion divided over biotechnology? , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  UNCOVERING FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY , 2002 .

[10]  Thomas J. Hoban,et al.  TRENDS IN CONSUMER ATTITUDES ABOUT AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY , 1998 .

[11]  Arie Rip,et al.  TAKING EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY SERIOUSLY Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission , 2007 .

[12]  P. Ball.  A metaphor too far , 2011 .

[13]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Engaging Narratives and the Limits of Lay Ethics: Introduction , 2010 .

[14]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay Ethics of Nanotechnology , 2010 .

[15]  D. Endy.  Foundations for engineering biology , 2005, Nature.

[16]  Michael A. Specter,et al.  A life of its own: where will synthetic biology lead us? , 2009, New Yorker.

[17]  Mark A. Bedau,et al.  Social and ethical checkpoints for bottom-up synthetic biology, or protocells , 2009, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[18]  A. McHughen.  Public perceptions of biotechnology , 2007, Biotechnology journal.

[19]  A Public Consultation on Plant Molecular Farming , 2005 .

[20]  Javier Lezaun,et al.  Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics , 2007 .

[21]  J. Lusk,et al.  U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology , 2004 .

[22]  C. Bruhn.  Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies , 2007 .

[23]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study , 1994 .

[24]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures That May End the “Science War” , 2000 .

[25]  P. Macnaghten.  Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative Structures, Public Responses, and Emerging Nanotechnologies , 2010 .

[26]  Thomas H Segall-Shapiro,et al.  Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome , 2010, Science.

[27]  Eleonore Pauwels.  Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology , 2009, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[28]  Timothy S. Ham,et al.  Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast , 2006, Nature.