Differences in barriers for controlled learning about safety between biotechnology and chemistry

Abstract

The increasing societal demand for safer, biobased products, and processes creates opportunities for industrial biotechnology and chemistry. To succeed, controlled learning about new emerging risks is crucial but both fields endure difficulty in doing so by their respective regulation and risk management culture.The planetary boundary for production and release of new chemicals and plastics 1 , rising CO 2 levels, depletion of fossil-based raw materials, and geopolitical dependencies present an urgent call for an industrial transition toward a biobased economy. Industrial biotechnology (and the associated field of green chemistry) aim to find more sustainable alternatives to conventional chemical manufacturing routes. Particularly the development of CO 2 -negative approaches (e.g., CO 2 conversion into chemicals and fuels 2 ) and biobased alternatives to fossil resources-derived chemicals, polymers, and plastics 3,4 show great potential to fight today's problems and for countries or regions to become less dependent on others. However, biotechnology is struggling to compete with conventional chemical methodologies 5,6 . This can be explained by the history, size 7,8 , and influence (e.g., having a strong lobby in terms of policy measures 9,10 ) of the chemical industry, and the simple fact that these industries are already established and matured compared to the biobased industries. However, it also appears that the respective risk management cultures in each industry differ greatly, which hinders the development of biotechnology and the biobased industry in becoming technically and economically feasible.The risk management culture in biotechnology emphasizes uncertain risks and is subject to a strong precautionary regime, particularly in Europe, leaving little room for development when uncertain risks are involved. In contrast, for chemistry, the focus is on known risks which has resulted in a culture of passive learning (i.e., through accidents) and many examples of regrettable substitution 11,12 . The two risk management regimes seem to be at odds with each other even though both types of risk emerge in each field. If we want to tackle the global challenges of today, we need to develop new, safer products and processes that may require new types of chemistry in which biotechnology could play a pivotal part. This requires a middle way between the risk management regimes of chemistry and biotechnology: one that stimulates awareness of uncertain risks and also creates room to gain new knowledge of these risks. Therefore, we need to put designated procedures and institutions in place solely for the aim of learning about uncertain risks, i.e., active, or controlled learning, so new products and processes can be developed safely. Safe by Design (SbD) approaches could provide a framework to achieve such controlled learning, as has already been demonstrated in biotechnology 13 and

Uncertainties and uncertain risks of emerging biotechnology applications: A social learning workshop for stakeholder communication

“…Fear of such consequences or implications can result in stakeholders keeping information or opinions to themselves. Such issues have already emerged in the (conventional) chemical industry, where there is little incentive for industry to share knowledge and data about possible adverse effects ( Drohmann and Hernandez, 2020 ; Bouchaut et al, 2022 ).…”

Contribution of Enzyme Catalysis to the Achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals

“…Ideally, this inclusion should go beyond the product/process stage; however, considering a wide range of scenarios in which a broad scope of possible risks is evaluated is challenging, and would call for a different system set-up. Regarding the latter, economic motives and the substantial investments required for innovation often hinder the adoption of safer and more sustainable alternatives by conventional industry [ 43 ]. In other words, the current system places more weight on economic motives than on other important values such as sustainability and circularity, both of which are crucial to achieving the SDGs.…”