‘Shiny happy biology’ - July 10, 2009
Posted for Lizzie Buchen
Researchers in the newly emerging field of synthetic biology need to explain their science to the public to avoid unwarranted fears over its potential, an international group of researchers warned this week.
Public education and engagement are two of most important challenges facing the field, which aims to build biological components with potentially useful functions, they told a symposium held at the US National Academy of Sciences. But the relatively new discipline also presents a unique opportunity for public outreach, according to keynote speaker Arden Bement, Jr, director of the National Science Foundation: “we have the chance to get it right at the outset”.
“These days, emerging technologies are social issues,” he said. “We need to educate and fully engage citizens about critical issues like environment, security, safety, and health. Science has the tools to inform decision and policy.”
As for the language of communication, the participants commented that, due to the severe problem of public understanding of science, phrases like “genetic engineering” and “synthetic biology” trigger fear and superstition. Stanford engineer Drew Endy joked that it might be more readily accepted if renamed “shiny happy biology”, but it would be better served, he said, by a clear explanation of the science that is accessible to policy makers and the public.
The speakers also made frequent references to the Asilomar meeting of 1975, when scientists gathered to discuss the safety and societal issues involved with using recombinant DNA. Synthetic biologists, too, need to embrace a similar attitude toward self-regulating their work and thinking about its implications for humanity.
Paul Rabinow of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, discussed the potential risks of insufficient public dialogue in more specific terms.
“Given the access to this material through the internet, there are unquestionably going to be accidents and malicious uses. That’s a given,” he said.
“But then what? What is the reaction to that going to be? Shut down biology? That’s what Dick Cheney would have done. I don’t think the biology community is prepared with answers to that question yet. But they need to be.”
See also
Synthetic biology gets ethical - UK centre hopes to blend science, policy and outreach in burgeoning field, Nature 12 May 2009
Comments
The first time I taught an undergrad class of neuroscience students, the relationship between science and general language was made painfully clear: one student used the phrase "minced baby rat brains" in her method section...after I finished chuckling, I suggested a slightly more academic alternative, but really focused on how such a phrase would be picked up by a non-science public -- you simply can't use the words "mince" "baby" and "brain" in the same sentence without provoking horrified stares. Helping the lay public understand synthetic biology is not just about using simpler or clearer language. It will require framing the discussion from the very beginning in a way that is not only palatable, but is inviting, interesting, engaging, meaningful.
Posted by: Mickey Schafer | July 10, 2009 04:13 PM
UNKNOWN HAZARDS! "Hey
Columbus, we gotta do studies first." A Nanny State is an armed cacastocracy. Mediocrity is a vice of the doomed.
Posted by: Uncle Al | July 10, 2009 04:24 PM
It's two way problem. Public should understand science at the same time scientist should understand scientific knowledge known by public. Both is only possible when they interact with each other into local understandable language.For example Sanskrit an indian language has vast scientific knowledge hidden in it which can be usefull only when public & scientist both understand this language.So every individual should do science in his/her local language along with english.It will be beneficial for the whole society. Anurag chaurasia, ICAR, India
Posted by: Anurag chaurasia | July 15, 2009 01:39 PM