Three Goals

Public Perceptions

On the Technological Frontier

David RejeskiDirector, Foresight and Governance Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology

National Academies, Royal Society, OECDWashington, DC

July 10, 2009

1. Review some of the initial research findings on public perception of synthetic biology (including comparisons between US-UK research and earlier work on nanotechnology).2. Share some observations about the social context and challenges as synthetic biology moves forward.

Three Goals

3. End with some near-term needs.

U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology

■ Quantitative Study:

The first representative national phone survey of 1,003 US adults nationwide conducted on August 20-25, 2008by Peter D. Hart Research Associatesat the request of the Wilson Center

■ Qualitative Study:

Two focus groups sessions conducted in Baltimore (Maryland) on August 6, 2008 among (18-65) adults – one focus group among women, one among men – from a relatively large diversity of social, religious background

U.S. Public Awareness of Synthetic Biology

■ In both focus groups and the phone survey, 70% of participants had heard nothing at all about synthetic biology

How much have you heard about synthetic biology?

22%

2%

67%

9%

Heard nothing

at all

Not sure

Heard a lot (2%)

or some (7%)

Heard just a little

Nanotechnology Awareness, 2008

Synthetic What?

U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology

■ Despite their lack of knowledge, 70% of the phone survey participants gave a personal description of synthetic biology and 66% ventured an opinion on the risk-benefit tradeoff.

Will potential benefits of synthetic biology outweigh its potential risks?

21%

16%

34%

29%

Not sure

Benefits will outweigh risks

Benefits & risks will be about equal

Risks will outweigh benefits

66%

Risks versus Benefits

With information

U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology

What would you say are some of the major benefits of synthetic

biology? Which applications do you think is most promising?

Potential Applications of Synthetic

Biology

Focus Group 1(Female Participants)

Focus Group 2 (Male Participants)

Biofuels 4 4Drugs for Treating

Diseases 1 3New Ways to Treat

Cancer 3 1Sensing Harmful

Contaminants 0 0Cleaning Up the

Environment 3 1

Overall Rankings of Potential Applications of Synthetic Biology(Values Reflect Number of Participants in Each Group Who Valued the Given Application

the Most)

What Applications Matter Most?

Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions Synbio Applications Matter! Similar Enthusiasm for biofuels

US“Sounds great, good deal, biofuels, I love that.”

“I really like the idea of generating, constructing a bacteria to generate hydrogen.”

“I like, about the biofuels, how they said it produces cleaner fuels…That could be good as far as going greener for the environment.”

“That [bacteria generating biofuels] would be fantastic.”

UK“We picked biofuels, basically because we felt it would have the biggest world impact of the four, because of the global concern about fuels in general and the CO2 emissions that it would actually save.”

“It will have the biggest impact on individual users. I know the anti-malarial drug is fantastic but it only will hit three or four million people, whereas there’s millions and millions of car drivers.”

U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology

Whose job should it be to regulate or manage the risks associated with synthetic biology?

Best Approach to Managing the Risks Associated with Synthetic Biology

(Values Reflect Numbers of Participants in Each Group in Favor of Described Approach)

Best Approach to Manage the Risks Associated with

Synthetic Biology

Focus Group 1 Female Participants

Focus Group 2Male Participants

All Participants

Require the Federal Government to Regulate Synthetic Biology 4 4 8

Allow the Scientific Community and Others Involved in

Advancements to Regulate Synthetic Biology

6 0 6

Ban the Further Development and Use of Synthetic Biology 1 4 5

Allow Companies and Private Funders Investing in Research and Development to Regulate

Synthetic Biology

0 1 1

Oversight

Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions

What about Regulation?Similar views on the best way to manage synbio’s governance No ban but government regulation with checks and balances and independent science involvement.

US“I feel [federal government] it’s the best approach because I don’t agree with banning it [the technology].”

“I think they [scientists] should be part of the team because they bring so much knowledge and understanding.”

UK“We didn’t think that any needed to be stopped, but the huge benefits also carry great risks […]. So we’d definitely want to have very tight safety and control regulations.”

“We’re not scientists. It’s really what it’s trying to do, the benefits and how it’s trying to solve problems around the world that’s of interest to me, rather than the nitty gritty of the science.”

Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions

Recommendations?Similar recommendations to scientists and policy-makers Openness and transparency increase public trust.

US“I think it’s exciting. I think it has a lot of potential, and we should continue to pursue it. But in doing it, all of these concerns need to be considered. And then the developer’s reaction to them and how they’re going to deal with it, whether it’s communication or regulation, needs to be clearly displayed. You got to have some support from everybody, and I don’t hear it here. There’s a lot of caution.”

UK “Open dialogue, highlighting the benefits and also highlighting the risks”

“We felt that a lot of people close down, again because of the bad press about GM crops, and people need to think more about the positives rather than the negatives. It’s just a case of listening and understanding.”

Public Expectations for Oversight

When asked “How can public confidence in nanotechnologies be improved?” people converged around three recommendations:

1. Greater transparency and disclosure2. Pre-market testing3. Third-party testing and research

(For Nanotechnology) There was little public support for:

- A moratorium on research and development

- Self-regulation

Results from 30 hours of focus groups conducted by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies between 2005 and 2007.

The name “synthetic biology” can be a liability.

Definitions?

“When the name is bad, things tend to get worse. When the name is good, things tend to get better.”

Al Ries and Jack Trout Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, 1981

No communication or public engagement strategy (by the scientific community, industry, or government).

Some Challenges

The “playing God” issue.

High Potential for Risk Amplification

The global H1N1 pandemic raises public anxiety of biological issues and threats.

Good science journalists are becoming an extinct species = greater potential for ill-informed, sensationalistic coverage.

The American public has experienced repeated failures of government regulation and oversight spanning food, drugs, consumer products, and finance = trust gap.

U.S. NGOs are engaged early on synbio (could push back on the science and its applications).

From: “Public Awareness of Nanotechnology: What do Americans know? Who do they trust?” Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 9/2007, www.nanotechproject.org

52%44%

41%57%

40%58%

37%59%

Great deal/fair amount of confidenceJust some/very little confidence

Confidence in Each to Maximize Benefits & Minimize Risks of Scientific/Technological Advancements

FDA

EPA

USDA

Businesses/

companies

The Trust Gap

New Opponents?

Inversion of the Leiserowitz effect (found by Kahan et al)1 Anthony Leiserowitz labeled as “environmental risk naysayers”

a segment of U.S. society whose members are disproportionately white and male, politically conservative, and highly religious.2

1. Kahan, D. et al “Risk and Culture: Is Synthetic Biology Different?” Cultural Cognition Working Paper #29.2. Leiserowitz, A.A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25, 1433-1442 (2005)

More concerned

Less concerned

Nuclear PowerGlobal WarmingMad Cow

Synthetic Biology

Kahan, D. et al (2007). “Affect, Values, and Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation,” Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper #22.

Benefits > Risks

Risks > Benefits

Polarization?

Messengers for Synthetic Biology?

“[People] will almost certainly decide whom to trust in exactly the way they normally do, namely, by assessing who it is in the debate at hand who seems most like themselves.”

Kahan, D. et al (2008): Biased Assimilation, Polarization, and Cultural Credibility: An Experimental Study of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions

Which Messengers?

?

“Scientists, policymakers, and others interested in promoting enlightened public evaluation of the best available information on … risks should take affirmative steps to create a deliberative climate that neutralizes biased assimilation and polarization.”

Based on research, need a public communications and engagement strategy; one that scales.

Need more applied research on public attitudes and perceptions, including international comparisons (and we need it soon).

Near-Term Needs

Risk research and analyses of regulatory adequacy.

More international cooperation.

Where is the risk research in U.S. funding?

“We tell ourselves stories to live.”

Joan Didion

References:

Hart Research Associates (2008), Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6019/hart_final_re8706b.pdf

Kahan DM et al. (2009), Risk and Culture: Is Synthetic Biology Different?, in Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 09-2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347165

Pauwels E, Ifrim I (2008), Trends in American and European press coverage of synthetic biology: Tracking the last five years of coverage, in Synbio 1 (Synthetic Biology Project, 2008). Available at: http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/5999/synbio1final.pdf

Scheufele DA et al. (2008), Religious beliefs and public attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotech. 361, 1-4.

Methodology:

Pauwels E, Ifrim I (2008), Trends in American and European press coverage of synthetic biology: Tracking the last five years of coverage, in Synbio 1 (Synthetic Biology Project, 2008), p. 25-26.

Hart Research Associates (2008), Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology, p. 1-2.