Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public

Abstract

We present insights from a study on communicating Synthetic Biology conducted in 2008. Scientists were invited to write press releases on their work; the resulting texts were passed on to four journalists from major Austrian newspapers and magazines. The journalists in turn wrote articles that were used as stimulus material for eight group discussions with select members of the Austrian public. The results show that, from the lab via the media to the general public, communication is characterized by two important tendencies: first, communication becomes increasingly focused on concrete applications of Synthetic Biology; and second, biotechnology represents an important benchmark against which Synthetic Biology is being evaluated. Keywords Public perceptions of Synthetic Biology Á Communication Á AnchoringCommunicating Synthetic Biology in the public sphere More than 10 years have passed since both the imports of genetically manipulated crops and Dolly the Sheep led to public and NGO protests in Europe. Since then, whenever a new technology appears, the question arises whether the new technology will be met with similar public reaction. Synthetic Biology (SB) receives considerable attention within expert circles, but the field is not yet prominent in the public domain. Media reporting has increased over the past few years (Cserer and Seiringer, in preparation) but the notion of ''synthetic biology'' has hardly entered public awareness. Very first studies on public perceptions of SB indicate that most lay people in the US say they have heard very little or nothing at all about SB [89% in the representative study by Hart Research Associates (2008), and 82% in the online-survey by Kahan et al. (2009)]. We are not aware of similar studies in other parts of the world.The fact that there has been little discussion about SB up to now does not mean, however, that it is uncontroversial. The first indication of an emerging public debate was an open letter to the Second International Conference on Synthetic Biology (SB 2.0) in May 2006, signed by 35 international NGOs, calling for inclusive public debate, regulation and oversight of the rapidly advancing field. The scientific community has tried to address the concerns by establishing self-imposed guidelines (Service 2006), with reference to the approach chosen for genetic engineering in the 1975 Asilomar declaration. In their analysis of the SYNBIOSAFE e-conference on the societal aspects of SB, Schmidt et al. (2008) highlight that within the SB community there is both a fear that public perceptions of SB might reignite past debates on genetic engineering and a hope that SB might be perceived as an emerging technology similar to nanotechnology, which is a technology that retained a comparatively more positive public image, at least in Europe [Gaskell et al. 2006; for an international comparison see Scheufele et al. (2008)].The fact that the terminology and meaning of SB are widely unknown and free from ''stigma'' in the public domain (Kunreuther and Slovic 2001) m...

Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology

“…Newspaper articles about synthetic biology were presented to eight groups of the Austrian lay public. These groups formed focus groups which allowed for quantitative and qualitative analyses (for more details see Kronberger et al, 2009). The newspaper articles were written by four Austrian science and health journalists who were each asked to write one article, sticking to the format and style of the newspapers they usually work for (three daily newspapers and one weekly magazine, covering both high quality and tabloid formats).…”

(Re‐)Designing Nature? An Overview and Outlook on the Ethical and Societal Challenges in Synthetic Biology

“…At the same time, it is of utmost importance to try to find a-shifting and negotiable-balance of both the persistent need for scientific institutions and gatekeepers, expert knowledge, and space for risky and ambitious scientific endeavors on the one hand, as well as allowing more active participation and reducing extant barriers of power on the other. [107][108][109][110][111] Furthermore, a study conducted with US citizens reveals enthusiasm for synthetic biology applications if they aim at finding solutions for societal, medical, and sustainability needs. [99] At this juncture, the important point about openness is that different interests are handled with transparency and are given equal weight when they concern the same regulatory point.…”

“…[106] Supportive attitudes have mainly been expressed concerning medical applications. [107][108][109][110][111] Furthermore, a study conducted with US citizens reveals enthusiasm for synthetic biology applications if they aim at finding solutions for societal, medical, and sustainability needs. Conversely, emerging biotechnologies are perceived as causes for potential concern if this research is done without investigations into their potential risks and long-term implications.…”

Synthetic biology applied in the agrifood sector: Societal priorities and pitfalls

“…Given that biotechnology may represent an important benchmark against which synthetic biology is being evaluated by the public (Kronberger et al, 2009), one might predict similar societal concerns to arise in the agrifood sector. Pauwels (2009) notes that, the participants in their US study reported being unfamiliar with synthetic biology and its applications, their perceptions and related attitudes were framed by those they already held about existing biotechnologies such as GM and cloning (Pauwels, 2013).…”