Embedding responsible innovation within synthetic biology research and innovation: insights from a UK multi-disciplinary research centre

Abstract

Over the last decade the discourse of responsible innovation (RI) has become a significant feature of debates concerning the relationships between science, innovation and society in the fields of biosciences and biotechnologies. We document how this discourse has evolved over the period 2014-2019 at a Synthetic Biology Research Centre hosted within a University in the UK (BrisSynBio). We describe how an approach to RI has evolved to include but go beyond public engagement, by encouraging practices aimed at anticipation, reflexivity and deliberation in sometimes creative and innovative ways. We describe how the Centre has struggled to capture the impacts of RI interventions on the everyday practices and behaviours of scientists and the outcomes of their work. The study reveals the importance of leadership, creativity, innovation, institutional support, openness to change and mechanisms of capturing impact for successful RI institutionalisation.

Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation

“…In their recent review, Schuijff and Dijkstra (2020) note that where such approaches are observed, these tend to be aligned with just one of the RI dimensions described by Stilgoe et al (2013) rather than all four in an integrated manner. That said, we also note instances of experimentation around RI as an integrated approach, for example within some of the Synthetic Biology Research Centres and some Centres for Doctoral Training (Pansera et al, 2020;Reinsborough, 2020).…”

“…Our analysis points to a range of responses in turn at individual and organisational levels. In a small number of cases RI appears to have been embraced in a substantive way (Pansera et al, 2020). At the other end of the spectrum there is evidence of outright resistance (Kuntz, 2017).…”

Closing out twenty-twenty on a positive note

“…Institutional and organizational level empirical investigations and assessments include reducing inequality through 3D printing in US public libraries (Woodson, Telendii, and Tolliver 2020), embedding responsible innovation in a UK synthetic biology multi-disciplinary research center (Pansera et al 2020), researcher expectations and practices around open science in Australia (Lacey, Coates, and Herington 2020), the integration of policy-driven grand challenges into research agendas in German university settings (Kaltenbrunner 2020), and the problematic paradigm of 'social license to operate' as used within synthetic biology public engagement discourses (Delborne, Kokotovich, and Lunshof 2020).…”

BrisSynBio Art-Science Dossier

“…The theme of art-science collaborations as the basis for "deliberative discussions on research agendas and direction" is taken up by Michael Reinsborough [2] in this issue. A broader analysis of the responsible innovation and public engagement programme at BrisSynBio can be found in Pansera et al [3].…”

“…reflections on methodological approaches to 'making'. 3 Maria Fannin's contribution to this dossier is a reflection on the collaboration and the questions and challenges it presented as emblematic of cross-disciplinary collaboration in synthetic biology, specifically those collaborations involving social scientists, researchers from the humanities and artists. Connor's piece offers an account of and reflection on the Blood Culture Project.…”