Revolution versus evolution?: Understanding scientific and technological diffusion in synthetic biology and their implications for biosecurity policies

Abstract

Synthetic biology enthusiasts often tout the emerging field for its present and future potential to revolutionize the life sciences. In the biosecurity arena, which has received considerable government and non-government attention, many are concerned that synthetic biology may prove to be an easier and cheaper way to conduct bioterrorism. To evaluate these claims, this article will focus on contrasting two different frameworks that have been used for understanding the development, diffusion and adoption of synthetic biology. In contrasting these frameworks, I will draw on examples from biotechnology and information technology because they are often used as analogies in synthetic biology discussions. I conclude that the critical elements for successful development, transfer, and use of synthetic biology methodologies and tools for harm are not purely material or technical, but involve important social dimensions that underpin technical work, requiring time, teams of experts, appropriate political, legal, and funding structures, and the development of new (still unknown) techno-organizational processes. To date, there have been few studies that have explored these socio-technical mechanisms of synthetic biology diffusion through in-depth examination at a micro and macro level. However, by having a more nuanced understanding of various synthetic biology approaches and how they are (or are not) able to travel easily to new settings, one can create a more refined spectrum of factors shaping threats from state and non-state actors related to synthetic biology. This article ends by outlining new research agendas important to support and pursue in order to improve biosecurity policymaking.

The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis

“…Although recent literature has extended far beyond the classical "technology-push" model of innovation [46] and advanced our view on the innovation process through more flexible innovation models such as agile gate stage [22], lean start up [47], design thinking [24], project management [25], open innovation [48], and other techniques, it does not seem to be reflected upon in RRI literatures. On the other side, RRI and CSR studies tend to describe other techniques, sometimes overlapping with major innovation management practices, such as walkshop approach [49], engagement workshops [50][51][52], online platforms [53]; online knowledge sharing [54,55], social experimentation and design thinking [56,57], anticipation of risks and technology assessment [58,59].…”

More socio-technical assessments of synthetic biology to inform security deliberations

“…This 'Revolutions' framework typically focuses on material and technical aspects in synthetic biology (Vogel 2008(Vogel , 2013(Vogel , 2014. For example, it focuses on codified knowledge (i.e.…”