Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment.

Neuroenhancement involves the use of neurotechnologies to improve cognitive, affective or behavioural functioning, where these are not judged to be clinically impaired. Questions about enhancement have become one of the key topics of neuroethics over the past decade. The current study draws on in-depth public engagement activities in ten European countries giving a bottom-up perspective on the ethics and desirability of enhancement. This informed the design of an online contrastive vignette experiment that was administered to representative samples of 1000 respondents in the ten countries and the United States. The experiment investigated how the gender of the protagonist, his or her level of performance, the efficacy of the enhancer and the mode of enhancement affected support for neuroenhancement in both educational and employment contexts. Of these, higher efficacy and lower performance were found to increase willingness to support enhancement. A series of commonly articulated claims about the individual and societal dimensions of neuroenhancement were derived from the public engagement activities. Underlying these claims, multivariate analysis identified two social values. The Societal/Protective highlights counter normative consequences and opposes the use enhancers. The Individual/Proactionary highlights opportunities and supports use. For most respondents these values are not mutually exclusive. This suggests that for many neuroenhancement is viewed simultaneously as a source of both promise and concern.

Precaution, Responsible Innovation and Beyond - In Search of a Sustainable Agricultural Biotechnology Policy.

The recent ruling by the European Court of Justice on gene edited plants highlighted regulatory inadequacy as well as a decades-old political problem, namely how to reconcile diverging expectations regarding agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Over time, regulators had tried out various tools to address concerns and overcome implementation obstacles. While initially focussing on risk (with the Precautionary Principle), they later tried to better embed technology in society (e.g., through Responsible Research and Innovation). The PP got criticized early-on; meanwhile, it seems to have lost much of its salience. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is associated with problems of participation and political impact, often rendering it a public awareness tool only. We discuss problems with both approaches and conclude that also RRI falls short of facilitating technology implementation in the way regulators might have had in mind. Rather than leaving political decisions to technical risk assessment or ethics and public awareness, we argue for re-establishing a broad yet sober process of opinion formation and informed decision-making in agricultural policy.

Different ways of problematising biotechnology--and what it means for technology governance.

To understand controversies over technologies better, we propose the concept of 'problematisation'. Drawing on Foucault's idea of problematisation and on the concept of frames in media research, we identify characteristic forms of problematising biotechnology in pertaining controversies, typically emphasising ethical, risk or economic aspects. They provide a common basis for disputes and allow participants to argue effectively. The different forms are important for how controversies are negotiated, which experts get involved, what role public engagement plays and how political decisions are legitimized--in short, for technology governance. We develop a heuristic for analysing the link between forms of problematisation and different options for technology governance. Applied to synthetic biology, we discuss different problematisations of this technology and the implications for governance.

Cartoons on bacterial balloons: scientists' opinion on the popularization of synthetic biology.

How do scientists perceive the media coverage of synthetic biology (SB)? In this paper, we approach this question by studying a set of cartoons devoted to SB. Based on a categorization of the cartoons into five large thematic groups an international survey was carried out to assess the opinion of SB research groups on science communication with regard to the public image of their discipline. The 101 responses obtained indicate that in general, their perception of the communication is not negative, although many respondents raised concerns on the media's inclination to sensationalism and over-simplification. However, the results also suggest that (in the light of the unfortunate experiences with GMO communication) scientists should think twice before proposing metaphorical interpretations of their research.

Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve?

A stimulated early public debate is frequently advocated when introducing an emerging technology like synthetic biology (SB). To debate a still quite abstract technology, participants functionally need a frame that determines which arguments are legitimate and which issues are relevant. Often, such frames are based on previous debates over other novel technologies. Three technologies currently provide frames for discussing SB: (green) biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology. In the biotechnology debate, risk has long been emphasised over economic benefits. More recently, nanotechnology has been referred to mostly in terms of benefits, while risks tended to be an issue for scientific discourses. This has frequently been related to the many outreach activities around nanotechnology. Information technology, finally, has retained the image of being 'cool' and useful on a personal level. The technology itself is taken for granted and only the consequences of particular applications have been up for discussion. Upstream engagement exercises in SB will have to consider the comparator chosen more diligently, because it might influence the debate on SB 'out there' in the long run.

Calling controversy: assessing synthetic biology's conflict potential.

Will synthetic biology elicit controversies similar to those of genetically modified crops before? Maybe, but where exactly are the analogies, and how can we gain substantial insights rather than mere guesses? We argue that as well as the intrinsic properties of the technologies at stake, the context of their implementation is decisive. To assess mechanisms of past and potential controversies, an investigative tool is presented. The Gate Resonance model, derived from older models of societal conflict, allows the identification of key elements of conflict generating processes. In monitoring the developing debate on synthetic biology using this model, analogies to the case of genetically modified crops appear less convincing. So far, there are only few indications that a controversy is imminent.

A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology.

As synthetic biology develops into a promising science and engineering field, we need to have clear ideas and priorities regarding its safety, security, ethical and public dialogue implications. Based on an extensive literature search, interviews with scientists, social scientists, a 4 week long public e-forum, and consultation with several stakeholders from science, industry and civil society organisations, we compiled a list of priority topics regarding societal issues of synthetic biology for the years ahead. The points presented here are intended to encourage all stakeholders to engage in the prioritisation of these issues and to participate in a continuous dialogue, with the ultimate goal of providing a basis for a multi-stakeholder governance in synthetic biology. Here we show possible ways to solve the challenges to synthetic biology in the field of safety, security, ethics and the science-public interface.

Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience?

Drawing an analogy to past debates over biotechnology, some stakeholders fear that synthetic biology (SB) could raise public concerns. Accordingly, 'lessons from the past' should be applied to avoid controversies. However, biotechnology in the 1990s is not the only possible comparator. The potential to become contested has been attributed to a number of other novel technologies. Looking at nanotechnology for example, controversies have not materialised to the extent predicted. The article discusses factors relevant for controversies over technologies as well as differences to the situation when modern biotechnology began to proliferate. Certain properties attributed to SB in the discussion so far indeed suggest a potential for controversies of its own, but perceptions may follow those on other aspects of biotechnology subject to local contingencies. Finally, it is questioned whether ELSI research should see its task in applying lessons from the past to ease technology introduction. Today, rather than seeing themselves being embedded in a linear model of technology development, social scientists take an interest in developments 'upstream' where technologies take shape.

SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology.

As part of the SYNBIOSAFE project, we carried out an open electronic conference (e-conference), with the aim to stimulate an open debate on the societal issues of synthetic biology in a proactive way. The e-conference attracted 124 registered participants from 23 different countries and different professional backgrounds, who wrote 182 contributions in six different categories: (I) Ethics; (II) Safety; (III) Security; (IV) IPR; (V) Governance and regulation; (VI) and Public perception. In this paper we discuss the main arguments brought up during the e-conference and provide our conclusions about how the community thinks, and thinks differently on the societal impact of synthetic biology. Finally we conclude that there is a chance for an open discourse on the societal issues of synthetic biology happening, and that the rules to govern such a discourse might be set up much easier and be respected more readily than many would suggest.

GM foods and the misperception of risk perception.

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute-benefit-appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.