Three Goals

1. Public PerceptionsOn the Technological FrontierDavid RejeskiDirector, Foresight and Governance ProgramWoodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsOpportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic BiologyNational Academies, Royal Society, OECDWashington, DCJuly 10, 2009

2. Three Goals 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. 3. End with some near-term needs.

3. U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology■ Quantitative Study: The first representative national phone survey of 1,003 US adultsnationwide 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

4. Synthetic What? 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? Heard a lot (2%)or some (7%) Not sure Heard nothingat all Heard just a little Nanotechnology Awareness, 2008

5. Risks versus Benefits 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? Benefits will outweigh risks Not sure 66% With information Benefits & risks will be about equal Risks will outweigh benefits

6. U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic BiologyWhat would you say are some of the major benefits of synthetic biology? Which applications do you think is most promising? What Applications Matter Most? Overall Rankings of Potential Applications of Synthetic Biology(Values Reflect Number of Participants in Each Group Who Valued the Given Application the Most)

7. Comparison of U.S. and UK Public PerceptionsSynbio Applications Matter! Similar Enthusiasm for biofuelsUS“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.”

8. U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic BiologyWhose job should it be to regulate or manage the risks associated with synthetic biology? Oversight Best Approach to Managing the Risks Associated with Synthetic Biology (Values Reflect Numbers of Participants in Each Group in Favor of Described Approach)

9. Comparison of U.S. and UK Public PerceptionsWhat 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.”

10. Comparison of U.S. and UK Public PerceptionsRecommendations?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.”

11. Public Expectations for Oversight (For Nanotechnology) There was little public support for: - A moratorium on research and development - Self-regulation When asked “How can public confidence in nanotechnologies be improved?” people converged around three recommendations: Greater transparency and disclosure 2. Pre-market testing 3. Third-party testing and research Results from 30 hours of focus groups conducted by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies between 2005 and 2007.

12. Some Challenges The name “synthetic biology” can be a liability. “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 Definitions? The “playing God” issue. No communication or public engagement strategy (by the scientific community, industry, or government).

13. 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. U.S. NGOs are engaged early on synbio (could push back on the science and its applications). The American public has experienced repeated failures of government regulation and oversight spanning food, drugs, consumer products, and finance = trust gap.

14. The Trust Gap Confidence in Each to Maximize Benefits & Minimize Risks of Scientific/Technological Advancements USDA FDA EPA Businesses/companies From: “Public Awareness of Nanotechnology: What do Americans know? Who do they trust?” Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 9/2007, www.nanotechproject.org

15. 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 More concerned Synthetic Biology Nuclear Power Global Warming Mad Cow Less concerned 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)

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

17. 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

18. 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.”

19. Near-Term Needs Need more applied research on public attitudes and perceptions, including international comparisons (and we need it soon). Based on research, need a public communications and engagement strategy; one that scales. Risk research and analyses of regulatory adequacy. More international cooperation. Where is the risk research in U.S. funding?

20. “We tell ourselves stories to live.” Joan Didion

21. 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.pdfKahan 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=1347165Pauwels 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.pdfScheufele 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.