Synthetic biology confronts publics and policy makers: Challenges for communication, regulation and commercialization

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 132-137

  Bubela, Tania ^a   Hagen, Gregory ^b   Einsiedel, Edna ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL PARTS; DEVICES AND SYSTEMS; ENGINEERING PROJECT; GENETIC RESOURCES; GLOBAL ISSUES; HIGH-THROUGHPUT; POLICY MAKERS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; REGULATORY MODEL; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

BIOLOGY;

BIOSAFETY; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETIC RESOURCE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LAW; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; SOCIAL CONTROL; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SOCIETY; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY; TRUST;

GENETIC TECHNIQUES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY;

EID: 84858081394     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2011.10.003     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Chopra P., Kamma A. Engineering life through synthetic biology. In Silico Biol. 2006, 6:401-410.
2. Chen Z., et al. Structural synthetic biotechnology: from molecular structure to predictable design for industrial strain development. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28:534-542.
3. Tucker J.B., Zilinskas R.A. The promise and perils of synthetic biology. New Atlantis 2006, 12:25-45.
4. Endy D. Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 2005, 438:449-453.
5. Canton B., et al. Refinement and standardization of synthetic biological parts and devices. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:787-793.
6. Gibson D.G., et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 2010, 329:52-56.
7. Staff writer Sizing up the 'synthetic cell'. Nature 2010, 10.1038/news.2010.255.
8. Caulfield T. Popular media, biotechnology, and the " cycle of hype". Hous. J. Health L. Pol'y 2005, 5:213-233.
9. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies 2010.
10. Kronberger N., et al. Communicating synthetic biology: from the lab via media to the broader public. Syst. Synth. Biol. 2009, 3:19-26.
11. Bubela T., et al. Science communication reconsidered: challenges, prospects, and recomendations. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27:514-518.
12. Schmidt M., et al. SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. Syst. Synth. Biol. 2009, 2:7-17.
13. Dabrock P. Playing god? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Syst. Synth. Biol. 2009, 3:47-54.
14. Gschmeidler B., Seiringer A. " Knight in shining armour" or " Frankenstein's creation" ? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media. PUS 2011, 20:1-11.
15. Pauwels E., Ifrim I. Trends in American and European Press Coverage of Synthetic Biology 2008, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
16. Kahan, D.M. et al. (2009) Risk and culture: is synthetic biology different? Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 09-2.
17. Pauwels E. Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology. Syst. Synth. Biol. 2009, 3:37-46.
18. Gaskell G., et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29:113-114.
19. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.E. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food. Risk Anal. 2005, 25:199-209.
20. Frewer L., et al. The influence of initial attitude on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agr. Hum. Values 1998, 15:15-30.
21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics Biofuels: Ethical Issues 2011, Nuffield Press.
22. Brown S. The new deficit model. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4:609-611.
23. Pidgeon N., et al. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4:95-98.
24. Buchanan A., Powell R. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Suggestions for a Comprehensive Approach 2011, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
25. National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity Addressing Biosecurity Concerns Related to the Synthesis of Select Agents 2006, National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services, USA.
26. König A., et al. Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2004, 42:1047-1088.
27. National Institutes of Health (2009) Recombinant DNA Research: Proposed Actions Under the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (NIH Guidelines) (74 FR 9411).
28. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Office of Generic Drugs (2011) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (31st edn).
29. United States Congress (1994) Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Public Law 103-417, 103rd Congress.
30. Food and Drug Administration Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues 2011, FDA.
31. Kumar S., Rai A. Synthetic biology: the intellectual property puzzle. Texas Law Rev. 2008, 85:1745-1768.
32. Rai A., Boyle J. Synthetic biology: Caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5:e58.
33. Schofield P.N., et al. Post-publication sharing of data and tools. Nature 2009, 461:171-173.
34. Kamau E.C., et al. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: what is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community?. LEAD 2011, 5:247-262.
35. United Nations Convention On Biological Diversity 1992, UN Environment Programme.
36. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme (2011) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Environment Programme.
37. Accessing Biodiversity And Sharing The Benefits: Lessons From Implementing The Convention On Biological Diversity 2004, International Union for the Conservation of Nature. S. Carrizosa (Ed.).
38. Tully S. The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing. RECIEL 2003, 12:84-98.
39. National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010 2010, National Science Board.
40. Scheufele D., et al. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4:91-94.
41. Einsiedel E.F. Public engagement and dialogue: a research review. Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology 2008, Routledge. M. Bucchi, B. Smart (Eds.).
42. Bhattachary D., et al. Synthetic Biology Dialogue. Report prepared for the BBSRC and EPSCR 2010, TNS-BBSRC.
43. Stirling A. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep. 2007, 8:309-315.
44. World Health Organization (2004) Laboratory Biosafety Manual. WHO/CDS/CSR/LYO/2004.11.
45. Department of Health and Human Services NIH Guidelines For Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules 2011 May, NIH.
46. Public Health Agency of Canada Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines 2004, 3rd edn.
47. European Parliament. Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.
48. European Parliament. EU Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.
49. European Parliament. EU Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
50. United Nations (1972) Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.
51. Centre for Disease Control. Select Agents Regulations (42 CFR Part 73) (October 16, 2008).
52. Canada. Human Pathogens and Toxins Act (S.C. 2009, c. 24).
53. Biosafety Europe (2008) Final Considerations: Coordination, harmonisation and exchange of biosafety and biosecurity practices within a pan-European network.
54. Canada. Natural Health Products Regulations (SOR/2003-196) made pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27).
55. European Parliament. Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
56. European Medicines Agency (2010) CHMP. Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. Doc. Ref. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1/Corr **.