Societal impact of synthetic biology: responsible research and innovation (RRI)

Gregorowius, Daniel; Deplazes‐Zemp, Anna

doi:10.1042/ebc20160039

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RRI contrasts with TA and ELSI because it is proactive rather than reactionary in nature. 58 From this, we defined the goals of WL and DL-related work to be the development of the S&T, Given the purpose of HP is to assess the social acceptance and commercial feasibility of S&T related to SynBio, it is clearer which disciplines contribute knowledge and skills needed to accomplish these goals; which include sociology, ethics, policy, risk management, engineering economics, and entrepreneurship. We contend RRI is a useful framework for structuring training activities and educational programs.…”

Section: Dry-lab Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in Undergraduate Synthetic Biology Training: Insights from a Canadian iGEM Student Perspective

Diep¹,

Boucinha

Yeung

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades have seen vigorous activity in synthetic biology research and ever-increasing applications of synthetic biology technologies. However, pedagogical research on synthetic biology is scarce, especially when compared to some scientific and engineering disciplines. Within Canada, there are only three universities that formally teach synthetic biology programs; two of which are at the undergraduate level. Many Canadian undergraduate students are instead introduced to synthetic biology through participation in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition where they work in design teams to conceive of and execute a synthetic biology project that they present at an international jamboree. We surveyed the Canadian landscape of synthetic biology education through the experience of students from the Canadian iGEM teams of 2019. Using a thematic codebook analysis, we gathered insights to generate recommendations that could empower future iGEM team operations and inform educators about best practices in teaching undergraduate synthetic biology.

show abstract

Section: Dry-lab Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in Undergraduate Synthetic Biology Training: Insights from a Canadian iGEM Student Perspective

Diep¹,

Boucinha

Yeung

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the reports point out the importance of intellectual and economic property issues, questions on the distribution of economic benefits [39] or intellectual and legal ownership. [127,128] In order to advance a governance strategy for SB which goes beyond mere window dressing, [129] it is of utmost importance to take a closer look at the institutional level. [125,126] This question of responsibility has been especially addressed by the concept of RRI.…”

Section: Toward a Governance Framework For Sbmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The idea is that through an intense focus on modes of public and democratic participation, science should become much more transparent and allow real participation. [127,128] In order to advance a governance strategy for SB which goes beyond mere window dressing, [129] it is of utmost importance to take a closer look at the institutional level. [130,131] A possible consequence could be that an important aspect of building-and regaining-trust in science and its endeavors is to have a close focus on trust-building activities for scientific institutions.…”

Section: Toward a Governance Framework For Sbmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Braun

Fernau

2019

Adv. Biosys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to provide an initial systematization of the ethical and socio-scientific debate on SB by structuring and categorizing issues that have been widely discussed and debated in recent years. The investigation included international ethical and societal research on SB, covering the period from January 2010 to December 2017. Even though we are aware that there have been several developments before it was referred to as SB, [6] this sample period was selected as the experiments of Craig Venter and his team in the year 2010 marked the birth of broader public and scientific attention to SB, as well as the rise and further establishment of SB as a distinct research discipline.We predefined five main fields of ethical research in order to map the scope of the respective debates. These fields were based on theoretical presuppositions informed by our preliminary theoretical and empirical research and the resulting experiences within the field of ethical and societal challenges of SB. The five fields are: 1) the definition and scope of possible applications; 2) questions of biosafety and -security; 3) the impact of SB on taken-for-granted cultural perceptions and values; 4) SB as a new mode of public participation in science; 5) issues of sustainable governance and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). With these five fields in mind, we searched for relevant articles on Scopus and PubMed. These are two of the largest international research databases, which cover a broad spectrum of ethical and socio-scientific work within the context of biotechnologies. The selected search term was "synthetic biology" in combination with several distinctive codes, which can be assigned to the aforementioned predefined main fields of ethical research ( Table 1).In general, our literature analysis has several methodological limitations. As it is not a comprehensive systematic literature review, it does not provide a broad set of quantitative data scrutinizing all debates, issues and questions on the ethical and societal challenges in SB. Nevertheless, our analysis provides a structured overview on and an initial systematization of the most relevant topics within the discussion on SB in recent years. Additionally, this article aims to provide an analysis and discussion of the current state of play of ethical and societal issues in SB.The first section is concerned with the question of a possible definition of SB and the issue of how we could describe and analyze its technological progress with regard to ethical and societal challenges. As one frequent debate of the last few This structured literature analysis aims to map the current, emerging, and predicted future of synthetic biology (SB) by putting the focus on the implied conceptual, societal, and ethical challenges. The central objective of the analysis is to provide an initial systematization of the ethical and socio-scientific debate on SB by structuring and categorizing widely discussed issues within the debate in recent years. Starting with the quest for possible definitions, issues ...

show abstract

“…The NASEM committee also called for a responsible science approach to developing and applying gene drive technologies, an approach calling for continuous evaluation, assessment, and education relative to social, environmental, regulatory, and ethical considerations surrounding gene drives. This argument also relates to responsible research and innovation, an emerging form of technology assessment dealing with technical aspects of biotechnology as well as societal and ethical issues [ 16 ]. Responsible science ultimately rests on values—deeply held, complicated, sometimes evolving beliefs about what kinds of things, in human lives and the world at large, should be fostered, protected, or avoided, and therefore about what people should and should not do [ 1 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gene drives in our future: challenges of and opportunities for using a self-sustaining technology in pest and vector management

Collins

2018

BMC Proc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gene drives are systems of biased inheritance that enhance the likelihood a sequence of DNA passes between generations through sexual reproduction and potentially throughout a local population and ultimately all connected populations of a species. Gaps in our knowledge of gene drive systems prompted the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Foundation for the NIH to ask the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to convene an expert panel to provide an independent, objective examination of what we know about gene drive systems. The report, “Gene drives on the horizon: Advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values,” outlines our understanding of the science, ethics, public engagement, governance, and risk assessment pertaining to gene drive research.Researchers have studied naturally occurring gene drive systems for more than a century. While CRISPR/Cas9 was not the first molecular tool considered to create an engineered gene drive, the advent of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology for gene editing gave a renewed impetus to developing gene drives in the laboratory for eventual release in the field. Recent experiments demonstrate that a CRISPR/Cas9-based gene drive can spread a targeted gene throughout nearly all of laboratory populations of yeast, fruit flies, or mosquitoes. Applying this basic science, there are proposals to use gene drive modified organisms to address such things as eradication of insect-borne infectious diseases and conservation of threatened and endangered species. Gene drives could potentially support agriculture by reversing pesticide and herbicide resistance in insects and weeds, and by control of damaging, invasive species. A major recommendation of the NASEM report is that there is insufficient evidence at this time to support release of gene-drive modified organisms into the environment. Importantly, the committee also recognized that the potential benefits of gene drives for basic and applied research are significant and justify proceeding with laboratory research and controlled field trials. This review summarizes highlights of the NASEM report with its focus on using the CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing technology to develop gene drive modified organisms.

show abstract

Societal impact of synthetic biology: responsible research and innovation (RRI)

Cited by 13 publications

References 45 publications

Challenges in Undergraduate Synthetic Biology Training: Insights from a Canadian iGEM Student Perspective

Challenges in Undergraduate Synthetic Biology Training: Insights from a Canadian iGEM Student Perspective

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

Gene drives in our future: challenges of and opportunities for using a self-sustaining technology in pest and vector management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About