SDSSB Comments 7 - Synthetic Biology and the Public Good

Calvert and Emma (2013) starts the discussion with an interesting argument: “science is part of society and society is part of science”. Even so, the paradigm lies to distinct between the scientist, engineers, and policy makers, with the public. Indeed, both scientist, engineers, policy makers, and industry regards “the public” as an important entity to dealt with. Joly and Rip (2007) reported how public opinions have important influence in the development of science and policy by using the case of genetically modified vines by INRA. Another report (Hayden, 2014) shows that synthetic biology business firms really depends on the “public acceptance” of their product. In this particular case, the public was boldly positioned as “the consumer”. Thus, there is a perspective that the development of a disruptive technology, like Synthetic Biology, desperately trying to get “public acceptance”.

Calvert and Emma (2013) and also Wickson et. al. (2010) argues for a perspective change in the position of public within the development of a new and disruptive technology. Calvert and Emma (2013) suggest that changing the frame from “public acceptance” to “public good”. This is achieved by recognizing the public as a heterogeneous groups of citizen engage them in the development of the technology. Synthetic Biology as public goods should be developed through ongoing concern and dialogue with public interest.

But of course, in order to achieve this two way dialogue, as implied in Wickson et al. (2010), we need citizens which actively engage to democratise science and technology development. It is therefore a reminder for us how scientific literacy is needed to realize the ideal public engagement in the development of Synthetic Biology. In reality, there are a lots of part in the world that this still cannot achieved (where citizen can actively engaged in scientific development and policies) due to a lot of circumstances. It is therefore, I think is important for the academia, which was entrusted by the public as the “agent of change”, to be modest and responsible for their act and innovation to contribute as public goods.