Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 10;14(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1.

Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists

Afke Wieke Betten  1 , Virgil Rerimassie  2   3 , Jacqueline E W Broerse  4 , Dirk Stemerding  3 , Frank Kupper  4
Affiliations

Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists

Afke Wieke Betten et al. Life Sci Soc Policy. .

Abstract

The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.

Keywords: Education; Ethics; Future scenarios; Learning; Responsible research and innovation; Synthetic biology; iGEM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Albrecht S, Coenen C, König H. The next horizon in technology assessment. Proceedings from the PACITA 2015 conference in Berlin. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR; 2015. Enriching the methodological scope of technology assessment. Initial insights from SYNENERGENE, the mobilisation and mutual learning action plan on synthetic biology.
    1. Balmer A, Bulpin K. Left to their own devices: post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the international genetically engineered machine (iGEM) competition. BioSocieties. 2013;8(3):311–335. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.13. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balmer A, Calvert J, Marris C. Five rules of thumb for post-ELSI interdisciplinary collaborations. J Responsible Innov. 2016;3(1):73–80. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1177867. - DOI
    1. Barben D, Fisher E, Celin C, Guston D. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, editors. The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008. pp. 979–1000.
    1. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag. 2006;18(3):285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources