Helge Torgersen

Biotechnology and the European public

The latest European sample survey of public perceptions of biotechnology reveals widespread opposition to genetically modified (GM) food in much of Europe, but public attitudes to medical and environmental applications remain positive.

The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences

Since 1991, the triennial Eurobarometer survey has assessed public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences in Europe. The latest 2010 Eurobarometer survey on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf), based on representative samples from 32 European countries, hints at a new era in the relations between science and society. We see less criticism of technology based on distrust in government and industry; more enthusiasm for novel technologies; and a more sophisticated appraisal of what technologies offer in terms of benefits, safety and sustainability. Europeans want regulation in the public interest and want a voice in such regulation when social values are at stake; we highlight an emerging European landscape of social value differences that shape peoples views of technologies.

Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?

George Gaskell and colleagues designed, analysed and interpreted the Eurobarometer 73.1 on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology as part of the research project Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics (STEPE), funded by the Science in Society Programme of the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7).

Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience?

Drawing an analogy to past debates over biotechnology, some stakeholders fear that synthetic biology (SB) could raise public concerns. Accordingly, ‘lessons from the past’ should be applied to avoid controversies. However, biotechnology in the 1990s is not the only possible comparator. The potential to become contested has been attributed to a number of other novel technologies. Looking at nanotechnology for example, controversies have not materialised to the extent predicted. The article discusses factors relevant for controversies over technologies as well as differences to the situation when modern biotechnology began to proliferate. Certain properties attributed to SB in the discussion so far indeed suggest a potential for controversies of its own, but perceptions may follow those on other aspects of biotechnology subject to local contingencies. Finally, it is questioned whether ELSI research should see its task in applying lessons from the past to ease technology introduction. Today, rather than seeing themselves being embedded in a linear model of technology development, social scientists take an interest in developments ‘upstream’ where technologies take shape.

SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology.

As part of the SYNBIOSAFE project, we carried out an open electronic conference (e-conference), with the aim to stimulate an open debate on the societal issues of synthetic biology in a proactive way. The e-conference attracted 124 registered participants from 23 different countries and different professional backgrounds, who wrote 182 contributions in six different categories: (I) Ethics; (II) Safety; (III) Security; (IV) IPR; (V) Governance and regulation; (VI) and Public perception. In this paper we discuss the main arguments brought up during the e-conference and provide our conclusions about how the community thinks, and thinks differently on the societal impact of synthetic biology. Finally we conclude that there is a chance for an open discourse on the societal issues of synthetic biology happening, and that the rules to govern such a discourse might be set up much easier and be respected more readily than many would suggest.

Of Newtons and heretics

321 foundations need to invest to turn validated targets and candidate drugs into actual treatments. Our list of likely drug leads and their targets must be validated and extended using additional lines of evidence by computation and, most importantly, wet lab experiments. We are committed to helping other researchers add their protocols and analyses to the current kernel. For example, computational docking, biophysical analysis, activity assays, site-directed mutagenesis and synthetic chemistry could be performed for all predicted targets. Unfortunately, such techniques are usually very expensive and thus not feasible on a genomic scale by a single research group. The main goal of our exercise was to narrow down the number of targets and identify their putative ligands for experimental follow-up, so that the overall process is faster, more thorough and less expensive. The TDI kernel’s list of ‘hits’ does not exhaust the ten target genomes. Researchers who want TDI to investigate additional candidates should contact us or engage in online discussions at our collaborative portal (http://www. thesynapticleap.org/).

Calling controversy: assessing synthetic biology’s conflict potential

Will synthetic biology elicit controversies similar to those of genetically modified crops before? Maybe, but where exactly are the analogies, and how can we gain substantial insights rather than mere guesses? We argue that as well as the intrinsic properties of the technologies at stake, the context of their implementation is decisive. To assess mechanisms of past and potential controversies, an investigative tool is presented. The Gate Resonance model, derived from older models of societal conflict, allows the identification of key elements of conflict generating processes. In monitoring the developing debate on synthetic biology using this model, analogies to the case of genetically modified crops appear less convincing. So far, there are only few indications that a controversy is imminent.

Austria and the Transatlantic Agricultural Biotechnology Divide

In contrast to shifts in other European countries in the late 1990s, the Austrian position on agricultural biotechnology has remained constant over the past decade. Although Austrias position was initially considered restrictive in comparison, developments elsewhere narrowed the gap, and the European Commission adopted measures that Austria had endorsed for a long time. Taking Austria as an example, this article considers some frequent explanations for the transatlantic divide in agricultural biotechnology that emphasize the link between public opinion and policy. Such explanations stress nongovernmental organizations and media campaigns triggering technophobia among an uninformed public, governments giving in to public pressure and abandoning sound science, and protectionism in agricultural policy that prevents free trade. While not entirely to be dismissed, there also are arguments against a cause-effect relationship between public pressure and policy. Differences in the perceived roles of agriculture seem more important, however.

Fuzzy Genes: Epistemic Tensions in Genomics

Genomics contributed to making modern biology a prolific multi-disciplinary field leading to new approaches such as systems biology. Reporting in the media reflects the high stakes involved in these changes, but such reporting often appears inconsistent as contradictory claims are made about new applications contrasting with uncertainties from new insights. Such inconsistent claims might relate to different disciplines involved in the field. New approaches from engineering disciplines such as computer science have changed research practices and approaches towards the object; the meaning of genes having become context-dependent. Since disciplines must cooperate, tensions arise over methods, evidence criteria and the significance of hypotheses. The concept of epistemic cultures, developed to highlight differences between distant fields such as high-energy physics and molecular biology, can render insights into the ‘cultures’ related to practices and approaches within genomics. Qualitative interviews with scientists shed light on how computer science and experimental molecular biology co-operate and which problems arise from epistemic differences as the criteria for relevant findings become subject to the disciplinary context. In addition, genomics-like approaches have entered other fields of biological research, whilst systems biology further challenges hypothesis-driven experimentation. This may lead to a new epistemic culture differing from the one previously described. These findings provide insights into how different accounts arise and shed light on general properties of prolific multi-disciplinary research fields. Inconsistencies in the way such fields appear from outside might be considered normal rather than the exception.

The Gate-Resonance Model. The Interface of Policy, Media and the Public in Technology Conflicts

The gate/resonance model provides an analytical frame for the description of technology conflicts. It offers an analytical scheme to conceptualise the interaction between public opinion, interest representing organisations, the media and the political system. The model distinguishes structural elements, functional elements and processes. Structural elements are the public with sub-publics and representational fields, the regulatory system with its institutions, intermediary organisations representing interests and bridging the gap between the public(s) and the regulatory system, the regulatory space and the media that mirror and participate in interest conflicts. Functional elements are resources, which enable intermediary organisations to convey interests to regulation, and filters that prevent information overflow within regulatory institutions: the gate as a formal function selects information according to statutory criteria, detectors according to usefulness for the institution. Processes described are the movement of issue fields due to re-interpretation; resonance, the tuning-in on issue interpretation among different actors; mobilisation, the generation of political pressure through resonance; and policy change through the abolishment of established interest and actor equilibrium due to mobilisation and ensuing gate failure. The model is applied to the example of biotechnology conflicts.