A life scientist, an engineer and a social scientist walk into a lab: challenges of dual-use engagement and education in synthetic biology

The discussion of dual-use education is often predicated on a discrete population of practicing life scientists exhibiting certain deficiencies in awareness or expertise. This has lead to the claim that there is a greater requirement for awareness raising and education amongst this population. However, there is yet to be an inquiry into the impact of the ‘convergent’ nature of emerging techno-sciences upon the prospects of dual-use education. The field of synthetic biology, although often portrayed as homogeneous, is in fact composed of various sub-fields and communities. Its practitioners have diverse academic backgrounds. The research institutions that have fostered its development in the UK often have their own sets of norms and practices in engagement with ethical, legal and social issues associated with scientific knowledge and technologies. The area is also complicated by the emergence of synthetic biologists outside traditional research environments, the so called ‘do-it-yourself’ or ‘garage biologists’. This paper untangles some of the complexities in the current state of synthetic biology and addresses the prospects for dual-use education for practitioners. It provides a short overview of the field and discusses identified dual-use issues. There follows a discussion of UK networks in synthetic biology, including their engagement with ethical, legal, social and dual-use issues and limited educational efforts in relation to these. It concludes by outlining options for developing a more systematic dual-use education strategy for synthetic biology.

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

[2]  Robert Cook-Deegan,et al.  The Genome Negotiations. (Book Reviews: The Gene Wars. Science, Politics, and the Human Genome.) , 1994 .

[3]  Andrew Balmer,et al.  Synthetic Biology: Social and Ethical Challenges , 2008 .

[4]  Jürgen Altmann Military Applications: Special Conditions for Regulation , 2010 .

[5]  H. Sauro,et al.  Standard Biological Parts Knowledgebase , 2011, PloS one.

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

[7]  P. Berg,et al.  Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. , 1974, Science.

[8]  Martin Fussenegger,et al.  Life after the synthetic cell , 2010, Nature.

[9]  Bibliotheca Alexandrine,et al.  Recommendations from the NRC report Challenges and Opportunities for Education about Dual Use Issues in the Life Sciences , 2011 .

[10]  James Revill Biosecurity and bioethics education: a case study of the UK context , 2009 .

[11]  Alexander Kelle,et al.  Controlling Biochemical Weapons: Adapting Multilateral Arms Control for the 21st Century , 2006 .

[12]  C. Hutchison,et al.  Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Sabine Maasen,et al.  Governing Future Technologies : Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime , 2010 .

[14]  Governing Synthetic Biology: processes and outcomes , 2009 .

[15]  Pasquale Stano,et al.  Achievements and open questions in the self-reproduction of vesicles and synthetic minimal cells. , 2010, Chemical communications.

[16]  Nariyoshi Shinomiya,et al.  Implementing Biosecurity Education: Approaches, Resources and Programmes , 2011, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[17]  R. Schiffer,et al.  INTRODUCTION , 1988, Neurology.

[18]  Jürgen Altmann,et al.  Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control , 2006 .

[19]  Graeme Hodge,et al.  International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies , 2012 .

[20]  Mark A. Bedau,et al.  The ethics of protocells : moral and social implications of creating life in the laboratory , 2009 .

[21]  Jane Calvert,et al.  The role of social scientists in synthetic biology , 2009, EMBO reports.

[22]  Michael J. Selgelid,et al.  Ethics Engagement of the Dual Use Dilemma: Progress and Potential , 2010 .

[23]  N. Rose,et al.  The Transnational Governance of Synthetic Biology , 2011 .

[24]  S. Maurer,et al.  Harmonizing biosecurity oversight for gene synthesis , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[25]  Maureen A. O’Malley,et al.  Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. , 2008, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[26]  Brian Rappert,et al.  Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons , 2010 .

[27]  Alexander Kelle,et al.  Ensuring the security of synthetic biology—towards a 5P governance strategy , 2009, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[28]  Arie Rip,et al.  Futures of ELSA , 2009, EMBO reports.

[29]  M. Marini,et al.  Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium , 2010 .

[30]  Markus Schmidt,et al.  Synthetic toxicology: where engineering meets biology and toxicology. , 2011, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[31]  K. Nixdorff Advances in Targeted Delivery and the Future of Bioweapons , 2010 .

[32]  Synthetic Biology Applying Engineering to Biology Report of a NEST High-Level Expert Group , 2022 .

[33]  Elizabeth Pennisi Synthetic biology. DARPA offers $30 million to jump-start cellular factories. , 2011, Science.

[34]  H. Wolinsky,et al.  Kitchen biology , 2009, EMBO reports.

[35]  Elizabeth Pennisi,et al.  Genomics. Synthetic genome brings new life to bacterium. , 2010, Science.

[36]  Claire Marris,et al.  The Transnational Governance of Synthetic Biology: Scientific uncertainty, cross-borderness and the ‘art’ of governance. For the Royal Society Science Policy Centre (UK). , 2011 .

[37]  Timothy B. Stockwell,et al.  Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome , 2008, Science.

[38]  Jon Turney,et al.  Molecular politics: developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982 , 1996, Medical History.

[39]  Pasquale Stano Approaches to the Construction of the Minimal Cell , 2008 .

[40]  Morgan Meyer,et al.  Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making , 2009 .

[41]  Alexander Kelle,et al.  Synthetic biology and biosecurity , 2009, EMBO reports.

[42]  Monika Kurath Negotiating Nano: From Assessing Risks to Disciplinary Transformations , 2009 .

[43]  Thomas F Knight Engineering novel life , 2005, Molecular systems biology.

[44]  Alexander Kelle,et al.  Controlling Biochemical Weapons , 2006 .

[45]  Christina D Smolke,et al.  Building outside of the box: iGEM and the BioBricks Foundation , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

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

[47]  Ralph E. Hoffman,et al.  The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome , 1996 .

[48]  Annemiek Nelis,et al.  What is ELSA genomics? , 2009, EMBO reports.

[49]  Luis Campos,et al.  That Was the Synthetic Biology That Was , 2009 .