Governing synthetic biology : a food policy approach

Abstract

As synthetic biology develops, food and agriculture is one sector in which it can be applied. This thesis presents the findings from interviews of 30 synthetic biology stakeholders from the research community, policymakers, industry, funders and NGOs about the future of synthetic biology in UK food and agriculture. I answer three linked research questions: (1) What are the ways in which synthetic biology is constructed by this sample of its stakeholders? (2) Why did these stakeholders construct synthetic biology in these ways? And (3) What are the implications of these constructions for UK food policy? Findings This research finds that past experiences of GM controversies, which I summarise with the term ‘GM Trauma’, shape participant views about synthetic biology. Past controversy experiences form part of a background framework of worldviews and understandings that in turn inform constructions of synthetic biology’s definitions, boundaries and status as potentially controversial or risky or not. These long shadows of past controversy are cast as assumptions about others’ knowledge (or lack thereof), perceptions about which types of views can be considered ‘scientific’ and ‘unscientific’, and what kinds of information and considerations ‘count’ as relevant for policy decision-making. This frames discussions about how publics might be engaged with, communicated with or managed; and underpins views about the status and value of scientists and science in policy arenas, sometimes leading to the exclusion of other stakeholders. Participants also perceived past controversies to have resulted in a reactive, stifling and ‘draconian’ governance framework, but which is “probably strong enough” to manage synthetic biology’s risks to food safety and the environment. In a policy landscape that participants sensed to be shifting, GM Trauma therefore has practical implications. Perceptions of past controversy and conflict seem to manifest as an expectation of future controversy and conflict. This contributes to a sense of insularity, driven by participant views about their own roles and about the attitudes and roles of others. The vast landscape of disparate stakeholders, insularity of scientific and policy communities, over-reliance on scientific expertise in synthetic biologyrelated policymaking spaces and the exclusion of other viewpoints combine to promote siloed thinking and a narrow focus on technoscientific notions of risk, safety and economic priorities. This has been found to be continuing despite the detailed scrutiny and advice offered by social scientists working closely with synthetic biologists for many years. Conclusion Synthetic biology’s potential to play a part in food policy priorities around, for example, environmental sustainability, human health and nutrition, livelihoods, and social and ethical considerations, remains unclear. It is vital that stakeholders debate how to integrate these aspects with present economic and research priorities. A deeper consideration of the implications of past controversy on stakeholder thinking may open new avenues for questioning current policy approaches, who is involved in policy decision-making, and how relationships can be built, or mended, between stakeholder groups. This is something to be recommended and encouraged.