Synthetic biology is considered a relatively new field of science and with this comes a mixture of public perceptions varying from outright fear to interest regarding its novelty. The applications of synthetic biology continue to penetrate various fields, from biotech, medical applications, sustainability to decreasing resource dependency. With a wide branching range it can be difficult to assess and view how the research is impacting people; as clearly this can happen in a variety of ways. Being a cutting edge field of research also engages the public’s imaginations from its potential uses. Some of these may enter the realm of science fiction, and any new discoveries that are made can be circulated by the media and filter into popular culture.
Given the bidirectionality of influence between science and society we decided to investigate public perceptions on gene technologies. We began by interviewing a psychologist from the University of Warwick, John Pickering, then we assessed the historic literature on the subject, before conducting our own survey during an outreach session in ThinkTank Museum in Birmingham, UK.
Following our discussion with John we decided to research the literature regarding the the public’s distrust of gene technologies in the past few decades. For instance a paper examining results from two major studies found that Europeans had a “deeply rooted” negative views of foods that had undergone genetic modification [1].
We also found peer reviewed evidence that the source of information was critical in determining the public’s opinion on genetic modification. For instance, an institution that ranks low in public trust had to have highly persuasive information in order to influence opinion on the matter [2].
Key findings for researchers:
1) The public feel excluded from the world of science and unable to have any influence.
2) In 2010, a very large majority (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology.
3) 87% of those surveyed about synthetic biology felt uninformed about the technology generally to answer questions about the benefits and risks.
Take away: communication and outreach are integral in retaining the public’s trust in scientists.
Surveys conducted in the last five years found these common opinions from participants;
1) Synthetic biology is both exciting and scary
2) There is a need for rules and regulations that can keep up with the rate of development in the area.
3) Synthetic biology could lead to an offence against nature
4) It is looked on positively as something that could provide many solutions to current major issues – particularly in the field of medicine and in replacing finite materials eg fuels.
5) It is not always certain that the intentions of scientists are good, and there is concerns of misuse eg bioterrorism
6) Synthetic biology could go really well or lead to some disasters
Another critical finding was that the public feel excluded from the world of science and unable to have any influence. This is important for synthetic biologists as consideration must be taken when taking into account the wider implications of their work. This also informed our decision to focus our energy on outreach programs.
A poll about attitudes to science held in 2010 asked about the risks and benefits attached to synthetic biology, to which 35% of the public responded that they didn’t know enough to answer the question, with 87% feeling uninformed about the technology generally. [3]
Europe-wide polling in 2010, showed that a very large majority (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology. [3]
There is increasing interest in synthetic biology from the public, and also increasing trust in the activities of scientists, the motives of the institutions that provide the funding and the government’s part in regulating the activities. However, the main public message is of uncertainty. They do not feel that they are well enough informed or have access to enough information to form strong opinions about synthetic biology.