|
|
Line 169: |
Line 169: |
| <p>The success of any emergent technology, particularly within a relatively new field of research, depends not only upon sound scientific practice, but consideration of social factors influencing its direction. We therefore decided it was essential at this early stage of our research to investigate the sociology factors effecting synthetic biology, and determine how to best approach our project to ensure its future success.</p> | | <p>The success of any emergent technology, particularly within a relatively new field of research, depends not only upon sound scientific practice, but consideration of social factors influencing its direction. We therefore decided it was essential at this early stage of our research to investigate the sociology factors effecting synthetic biology, and determine how to best approach our project to ensure its future success.</p> |
| <p>Our investigation into the sociological factors influencing the progression of synthetic biology began in discussion with leading academics in the field of environmental humanities. <b>Matthew Kearnes</b> is an ARC Future Fellow at UNSW in the School of Humanities and Languages, focusing upon the intersection between science and social theory, including research into the social dimensions of bionanotechnologies. <b>Eben Kirksey</b> is a Senior Lecturer and DECRA Fellow at UNSW, researching the boundaries of nature and culture, and the political influences on the imaginative processes.</p> | | <p>Our investigation into the sociological factors influencing the progression of synthetic biology began in discussion with leading academics in the field of environmental humanities. <b>Matthew Kearnes</b> is an ARC Future Fellow at UNSW in the School of Humanities and Languages, focusing upon the intersection between science and social theory, including research into the social dimensions of bionanotechnologies. <b>Eben Kirksey</b> is a Senior Lecturer and DECRA Fellow at UNSW, researching the boundaries of nature and culture, and the political influences on the imaginative processes.</p> |
− | <p>The subtle connections between science and society are often overlooked, with researchers assuming that the main issue with public acceptance of new technologies, especially in biology, is a lack of <b>scientific communication and understanding</b>. However, as our team discovered in conversation with Matthew Kearnes, this was an over-simplification of a multi-faceted problem. Although a clear presentation of the research is important for establishing the trust of the wider community, and this contingent upon effective scientific communication, it was noted ‘framing the issue entirely in risk…</p> | + | <p>The subtle connections between science and society are often overlooked, with researchers assuming that the main issue with public acceptance of new technologies, especially in biology, is a lack of <b>scientific communication and understanding.</b> However, as our team discovered in conversation with Matthew Kearnes, this was an over-simplification of a multi-faceted problem. Although a clear presentation of the research is important for establishing the trust of the wider community, and this contingent upon effective scientific communication, it was noted <i>‘when publics are given more information about genetically modified crops, or perhaps in this case synthetic biology, their concerns are amplified rather than diminished’.</i> Broader concerns exist with the public which aren’t considered at the research stage, as they should be. These concerns include issues of <b>ownership,</b> who controls the product and profits from the product, <b>responsibility,</b> who can be held accountable if technology goes awry, and frameworks for <b>regulation</b> of synthetic products. </p> |
− | <p>Exploring further the connections between society and scientific research, the external factors influencing the directions of research were discussed.</p> | + | <p>The limited scope with which scientists approached the <b>calculation of risk,</b> and the effects of this restricted inquiry, was identified by Eben as a major issue in the field. The impacts on groups apart from humans, on the environment, plant, and animal species, due to unexpected side-effects of technologies, should be more thoroughly investigated, <i>‘trying to do imaginative work, speculative work is what needs to be done at the risk assessment phase… we need to start thinking more creatively, outside of the box’.</i> Risk assessment should be performed not only by regulatory bodies, but by the scientists themselves. Thoroughly evaluating and balancing the risks and benefits at the research level would encourage conscientious practices, and hold scientists more accountable for their research.</p> |
− | <p>The potential of synthetic biology to have an impact upon societal structures were also investigated.</p> | + | <p>The <b>external factors influencing research</b> were also an interesting point of tension discussed. Although we had not consciously realised this during the design of our project, political and economic pressures direct the progress of research in specific ways. As Matthew explained <i>‘[synthetic biology] only impacts society in as much as it’s driven by a set of social, political, and economic forces’.</i> These external forces, and the limitations or bias they enforce of directions of research, should be kept in mind when developing new technologies. Who does this research benefit? And why should it benefit this particular group? These are questions which should be addressed at the early stages of development to clearly establish the moral groundwork of technological directions.</p> |
| + | <p>In the same way they societal values influence research, technological developments also have the potential to change <b>societal structures</b> and ideals. Drawing analogies to the development of amniocentesis and the subsequent decline of down syndrome individuals in the population, Eben prompted us to consider that <i>‘We have to think forward to how emerging technologies are almost legislating what the conditions of life could and should be’.</i> As the tools of synthetic biology continues to improve, and innovations such as CRISPR/Cas9 enable gene editing not only in bacteria, but in plants and animals, classically defined <b>moral and ethical boundaries</b> begin to blur. Investigation into the reasons behind innovation should be made, and questions asked about whether products should be developed.</p> |
| + | |
| + | <p> EMBED VIDEO </p> |
| + | |
| + | <p><b>How did this effect our approach to research?</b></p> |
| + | <p>From our discussions, we were able to identify a number of important social considerations which need to be made not only for the success of our project, but for the success of all research in foundational technologies. From this we developed the following suggestion of good practice:<p> |
| + | <p><li><b>Explore varying vested interests</li></b></p> |
| + | <p>Find out exactly who would be interested in or affected by both your research and your desired product. Consider exactly why they are vested in your research, and how you can adapt your product to best address these needs. A number of different groups, including communities, industry partners, and collaborators may be interested for a variety of different reasons. The success of a product will be determined when most or all of these interests are considered.</p> |
| + | <p><li><b>Consult widely in the community</li></b></p> |
| + | <p>All products will exist in a social dimension, and their integration into specific sectors of society therefore should be assessed. The unique concerns of all social groups, including minorities, should be considered to improve targeted product design.</p> |
| + | <p><li><b>Investigate risks broadly and inventively</li></b></p> |
| + | <p>Thoroughly consider the ways in which your research may go awry when exposed to unexpected variables outside the laboratory. This should be conducted with not only human health in mind, but environmental and ecological risks.</p> |
| + | <p><li><b>Identify the aims of the research honestly</li></b></p> |
| + | <p>The motives and realities of technological developments should be honestly conveyed to stakeholders in the project. By accurately identifying why research is being undertaken, and creating clear implementation projections, a more realistic and open conversation about research is allowed.</p> |
| + | <p><li><b>Share progress with stakeholders</li></b></p> |
| + | <p>A dialogue model should be established, where the community has a voice in product design and implementation, with progress sharing integral to this. Consultation will enable consistent re-evaluation of research progress, risks, and barriers to implementation, ultimately resulting in the creation of a technology best suited to its purpose.</p> |
| + | |
| + | <p>After considering this for our project, we decided that at this stage in the development of our technology the most effective way to open up a dialogue with the pubic would be to hold a <b><u>public panel discussion on synthetic biology [HYPERLINK OF SYMPOSIUM VIDEO].</b></u> As clear applications of our project begin to be realised in the future, we intend to follow the good practices outlined above, and continue an honest dialogue with the community to improve our processes of scientific practice. |
| + | |
| + | |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |
Line 182: |
Line 202: |
| <p>To edit, rearrange, and disrupt the basic structures of life implicates a fundamental change to the structure upon which our moral, ethical, and therefore legal systems are built. As projects, such as our own, have the potential to revise legal concepts, and are equally limited by legal limitations, we thought it essential to investigate the way in which synthetic biology research and the law interact for our human practices.</p> | | <p>To edit, rearrange, and disrupt the basic structures of life implicates a fundamental change to the structure upon which our moral, ethical, and therefore legal systems are built. As projects, such as our own, have the potential to revise legal concepts, and are equally limited by legal limitations, we thought it essential to investigate the way in which synthetic biology research and the law interact for our human practices.</p> |
| <p>In order to closely examine the complexity of Biolegalities, we began discussions with academics in the fields of law and philosophy. <b>Marc de Leeuw</b> is a senior lecturer in the UNSW Law Faculty, specialising in the field of legal, moral, and political philosophy. He established the UNSW Initiative for Bio-Legalities, aiming to further explore the complexity of emerging relations between Law and Biology. <b>Lyria Bennett Moses</b> is an associate professor in Law at UNSW, whose research explores the relationship between technology and law, and the issues which arise as technologies evolve and change within Australian jurisdictions. In conversations with these distinguished academics, we were able to examine both the structural and theoretical aspects of the concurrent evolution of law and synthetic biology, and the impacts they may have on one another.</p> | | <p>In order to closely examine the complexity of Biolegalities, we began discussions with academics in the fields of law and philosophy. <b>Marc de Leeuw</b> is a senior lecturer in the UNSW Law Faculty, specialising in the field of legal, moral, and political philosophy. He established the UNSW Initiative for Bio-Legalities, aiming to further explore the complexity of emerging relations between Law and Biology. <b>Lyria Bennett Moses</b> is an associate professor in Law at UNSW, whose research explores the relationship between technology and law, and the issues which arise as technologies evolve and change within Australian jurisdictions. In conversations with these distinguished academics, we were able to examine both the structural and theoretical aspects of the concurrent evolution of law and synthetic biology, and the impacts they may have on one another.</p> |
− | <p>To fully conceptualise how the law regulates emergent technologies such a synthetic biology, we felt it was important to understand the way in which the law allows for integration new technologies.</p> | + | <p>To fully conceptualise how the law regulates emergent technologies such a synthetic biology, we felt it was important to understand the way in which the law allows for <b>integration new technologies.</b> This was discovered to be a complex process, as explained by Lyria, <i>‘When legislation is passed there is an imagined set of technologies that it will apply to… Where you have a new technology come onto the scene the law wont be perfectly adapted to that technology’.</i> Therefore, to accommodate any new technology, there may be a need to prohibit, restrict, clarify (through legislation or judgment) or repeal existing laws. <b>Laws in Australia</b> which currently apply to synthetic biology technologies specifically include the <i>Gene Technology Act 2000,</i> as well as a number of broadly applicable laws including negligence, property, ethics, environmental, and nuisance laws. We found that the ways in which our research activity is regulated was broader than initially perceived. This reaffirmed the discussions had with sociologists, that research is never truly isolated to the laboratory, but may have serious effects upon wider communities which need to be considered.</p> |
| + | <p>Regulation of research exists not only in legislation, or ‘hard law’, as outlined above, but in the form of protocols or good practices, ‘soft law’. The combination of both <b>hard and soft law</b> was discussed with Marc, <i>‘In general the scientific community would rather have soft law, because that means they more or less self regulate, and that allows for more forms of innovation’.</i> Different forms of hard and soft law in similar fields across nations creates difficulties for scientific collaboration, and therefore standardisation was identified as an area of tension to which increased should be paid by the community.</p> |
| + | <p>Law and biology also have a very interesting relationship, as <b>biology redefines legal concepts.</b> Where biological understanding becomes increasingly enriched, legal concepts are re-evaluated and evolve with new knowledge. As shown in the example of the notion of ‘parenthood’, Marc explained how developments in synthetic biology may lead to a new understanding of legal concepts, and the law needs to react accordingly. <i>‘Biotechnology and synthetic biology changes the ordering of the rest of the world by law, because it needs to include the way that biology has re-ordered a particular legal concept’.</i> This co-constitution of law and biology co-produces new orders, and displays how synthetic biology research has the potential to really impact social arrangement.</p> |
| + | <p>The particularly unique culture of synbio, and its push for open-access sharing of information, has resulted in the emergence of ‘biohackers’; backyard scientists looking to create their own technologies and organisms. Although widespread scientific capability and curious is considered a positive, the reluctance of states to proactively regulate the experimental processes has lead concerns about <b>biosafety</b> in the wider community. Marc noted that <i>'It would be very useful to have a permanent exchange between those working in synthetic biology and legal scholars,'</i> to address such issues as they arise, and be able to provide clear legal structures should intervention be needed.</p> |
| + | <p>Ultimately, as identified by Lyria in our discussions, the law is not the only regulator of new technologies. How a technology is <b>accepted into society</b> is also regulates its success, as assessed on the moral concerns of communities at large. <i>‘From an ethical standpoint as scientists its important to think beyond what am I allowed to do to consider what is it socially acceptable for me to do’.</i> If the public is averse to utilising a product, despite being grounded in sound science, the social morals will hinder its future progression.</p> |
| + | |
| + | <p> EMBED VIDEO </p> |
| + | |
| + | <p><b>How did this effect our approach to research?</b></p> |
| + | <p>Apart from identifying relevant laws we should be aware of in developing our technology, the moral and ethical inquiries we should be having were made quite apparent throughout these discussions. As our target product, OMVs, are non-replicative, there are fewer legal barriers in place to restrict their use than for live bacterial cells. However, identification of the legal parameters only emphasised the need for comprehensive consultation with communities and parties who will be using or effected by our technology.</p> |
| + | <p>Additionally, a need for consultation with legal professionals and policy makers was made apparent. Understanding the framework within which our technology exists into the future will be paramount. Helping those designing laws for its regulation to understand our technology’s aims and progress will only aid the positive integration of technology design and protection of those using such developments.</p> |
| </div> | | </div> |
| </div> | | </div> |