Bart Walhout

Synthetic Biology and the Role of Civil Society Organizations Shaping the Agenda and Arena of the Public Debate

1. Introduction, Markus Schmidt 2. That Was the Synthetic Biology That Was, Luis Campos 3. An Introduction to Synthetic Biology, Carolyn M.C. Lam, Miguel Godinho, Vitor A.P. Martins dos Santos 4. Computational Design in Synthetic Biology, Maria Suarez, Guillermo Rodrigo, Javier Carrera, Alfonso Jaramillo 5. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology, Anna Deplazes, Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, Nikola Biller-Andorno 6. Do I understand what I can create?, Markus Schmidt 7. Security Issues Related to Synthetic Biology, Alexander Kelle 8. The Intellectual Commons and Property in Synthetic Biology, Kenneth A. Oye, Rachel Wellhausen 9. Governing Synthetic Biology: processes and outcomes, Joyce Tait 10. Synthetic Biology and the Role of Civil Society Organisatons, Dirk Stemerding, Huib de Vriend, Bart Walhout, Rinie van Est 11. Summary and Calculations, Alexander Kelle Index

Steering with big words: articulating ideographs in research programs

Nowadays, science should address societal challenges, such as ‘sustainability’, or ‘responsible research and innovation’. This emerging form of steering toward broad and generic goals involves the use of ‘big words’: encompassing concepts that are uncontested themselves, but that allow for multiple interpretations and specifications. This paper is based on the premise that big words matter in the structuring of scientific practice and it empirically traces how three ‘big words’ – ‘sustainability’, ‘responsible innovation’ and ‘valorization’ (a term closely linked to knowledge utilization) – steer research activities within a Dutch research program of nanotechnology that is explicitly related to societal challenges. To do so, the theory of articulation is extended with the concept of ideographs. We report on how the top-down steering ambitions of policy are countervailed by the bottom-up dynamics and logics of researchers. We also conclude that when ‘big words’ are used in an organizational and administrative setting, it changes their effects

Converging Technologies, Shifting Boundaries

At the beginning of the 21 century, most people are no longer surprised by technological revolutions. The twentieth century brought us information technology and biotechnology: key technologies for pioneering innovations such as the computer, the Internet and genetically modified plants. In the transition to the twenty-first century, two other important developments: nanotechnology (the research and design of materials at the smallest level possible) and cognitive science came along too.

Synthetic Biology and the Role of Civil Society Organizations

In this chapter we discuss the role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in current and future public debates about synthetic biology as a new and emerging science and technology. We see CSOs as potentially important intermediaries between scientific and governance institutions on the one hand and wider publics on the other hand. In this role CSOs have already contributed to the agenda of the emerging debate about synthetic biology. However, the way in which CSOs and wider publics may be involved in future debates about synthetic biology will also depend on the framing of the issues at stake by governmental and scientific actors in these debates. To make this clear we refer in this chapter to the lessons learnt from earlier debates about genetic engineering and nanotechnology which show a notable difference between governmental and scientific approaches to the implications of new science and technology, focusing on issues of risk and regulation, and the activities of CSOs, emphasizing broader societal issues. This tension is also apparent from our analysis of the agenda of the emerging synbio debate and from the results presented in this chapter of a survey in which we have interviewed a variety of CSOs about their visions on synthetic biology. In the light of this tension we also discuss in this chapter the conditions that should be met for a constructive role of CSOs in future public debates about synthetic biology.

Risk and Technology Assessment

This chapter provides an overview of the changing relationship between risk, technology assessment (TA), and risk assessment (RA). It does so by comparing the development of the practice of parliamentary TA and RA, the way risk is interpreted in these practices, and the political role these practices play in dealing with risks. The basic argument is that originally RA and TA presented politically separate practices. Over the last decade, the conceptual gap between these two practices has been bridged to alarge extent. We start with describing the classical approaches to TA and RA, which developed in 1960s in the United States and where guided by the belief that scientific methods would improve decision making around the risks involved in science and technology. Classical parliamentary TA and RA present very distinct scientific and political practices, with different conceptions of risk and political roles. The classical approach to risk operated with anarrow mathematical definition of risk. Classical TA defined risk in amuch broader fashion; risk referred to abroad set of (potential) negative social effects of science and technology. RA was thought to help the government in managing risk, by depoliticizing risk management. In contrast, parliamentary TA aimed to enable apolitical debate within Congress, and thereby strengthening the position of Congress vis-a-vis the executive branch. Throughout the years, both practice and scientific literature have revealed basic shortcomings of the classical approach to TA and risk. Driven by the concept of uncertainty, the role of RA and TA and their interpretation of risk have changed. Modern risk approaches are expected to deal with both calculable and uncertain risk. TA is encouraged to look beyond effects, to also analyze current visions and values that drive science and technology. Based on the concept of uncertainty, attempts have been made to characterize risk or problem situations in order to clarify the limitations of the classical RA and TA approaches. The claim is that in case of scientific and regulatory uncertainties, and value dissent more participatory approaches to RA and TA are required, which seek to represent public controversy. The IRGC risk governance framework can be seen as exemplary for the new risk approach. From arisk governance perspective, RA and parliamentary TA have become complementary practices. The case of risk governance on nanotechnology in the Netherlands proofs this point. However, parliamentary TA’s role within risk governance presents aremarkable blind spot on the current research agenda.