Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology

Abstract

Frameworks that govern the development and application of novel products, such as the products of synthetic biology, should involve all those who are interested or potentially affected by the products. The governance arrangements for novel products should also provide a democratic mechanism that allows affected parties to express their opinions on the direction that innovation does or does not take. In this paper we examine rationales, obstacles and opportunities for public participation in governance of novel synthetic biology products. Our analysis addresses issues such as uncertainties, the considering of alternative innovations, and broader social and environmental implications. The crucial issues in play go beyond safety alone, to include contending social values around diverse notions of benefit and harm. The paper highlights the need for more inclusive social appraisal mechanisms to inform governance of Synthetic Biology and alternative products, and discusses a few practical methods to help achieve this goal.

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

“…Responsiveness involves responding to new knowledge as it emerges and to the complex perspectives, views, and norms made visible through anticipation, reflexivity, and diversity and inclusion. Responding to new perspectives is inherently about power sharing, ensuring that the framing of Intended Consequences is responsible, democractic, and just in both process and outcomes (Stirling, Hayes, & Delborne, 2018).…”

Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation?

“…This blurry line between risk and sustainability demonstrates the significance of including non-safety issues in order to make a decision that is socially acceptable. This overlap between a standard risk assessment, areas of uncertainty and ignorance (Wynne 1992 ; Stirling 2007 ; Stirling et al 2018 ) is highly relevant for the issue of spread of transgenes, such as antibiotic resistance marker genes, as well as herbicide tolerant genes.…”

Two unresolved issues in community engagement for field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes

“…To gain some insight into these issues, it is worth noting that most commentators agree that field trials should not take place without the consent of the affected community [6,7,9,30]. One could argue that the community's right to autonomy implies that communities should be able to approve or disapprove of actions (or policies) that significantly impact their health or their environment, such as releasing GM mosquitoes in their vicinity [2,3,6,7].…”

“…There is an emerging consensus among scientists, ethicists, and public health officials that substantive and effective public and community engagement is required prior to releasing genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes into the environment [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Public and community engagement helps to promote deliberative democracy and support from local populations and the wider public [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].…”

“…the community might seek access to GM mosquitoes that have been not approved by the public. However, given the structure of biotechnology regulation in most countries, this issue is not likely to arise because approval at the national level is required before community approval is sought[9,13] 6. It is likely that cases involving conflicts between the community and the public will end up in the courts, which will have to weigh the interests of the community in relation to the interests of society.…”