Commentary: looking for conflict and finding none?

The articles presented in this issue of PUS show that synthetic biology may be much discussed in elite and expert circles, but is nearly absent in public fora or the media. Even when looking at the amount of research on synthetic biology within some major European countries, it has to be admitted that synthetic biology is not a major field of funding or actual research. True, interest has been rising in recent years and many of its proponents claim that the really interesting breakthroughs are still to come in the near future. Yet, apparently there is the worry that several of the articles have addressed, namely that synthetic biology may eventually elicit the social and political controversies that Europe has experienced with genetically modified crops. One is eager to learn what to expect of the direction of future public reaction to further developments in synthetic biology. Before engaging too deeply in this discussion, one could perhaps sit back and reflect on some basic, differently contextualised questions, like e.g. why do we worry so much about this possibility of social conflict in the first place, and, indeed, who is doing the worrying? And, if we are worrying about this, does that actually imply dissatisfaction about how the discussion of genetically modified crops eventually turned out? And does this worry imply a distrust of the regulatory mechanisms that resulted from this debate? Again, whose dissatisfaction and whose distrust? As social scientists we have long accepted that there is no viewpoint from nowhere, that there is implicit commitment and bias in our studies, especially when they pertain to questions of current policy and shaping our scientific and technological world. Furthermore, we have assumedly internalised some common frameworks of reference, like for instance the view that assessments of techno-science are most useful when moving as much as possible upstream, when we are pro-active and precautionary. And we commonly assume that public engagement in one form or another in these assessments and debates is to be taken as a good, as something that appeals to our visions of deliberative democracy and that may contribute to more robust technological development. Together with insights from STS traditions like e.g. the co-evolution of science and society or the role of competing narratives supported by different actors, a framework has evolved that guides us in forming our research questions and justifies as meaningful and relevant our research-based contributions to policy. But times change and what was meaningful once need not remain meaningful forever. Often we pride ourselves on an inbuilt reflexivity, on contextualising technology debates in order to break through naïve schemes of fact and value or benefit and risk. Do we need to contextualise afresh our own frameworks and get in touch with societal realities that have moved beyond our understandings?