Suchergebnisse

Synthetic biology, according to some definitions, is the attempt to make biology into an engineering discipline. I ask what is meant by this objective, which seems to have excited and energised many people and encouraged them to start working in the field. I show how synthetic biologists make a point of distinguishing their work from previous genetic 'engineering', which is described as bespoke and artisan. I examine synthetic biologists' accounts of the differences between biology and engineering, which often oppose comprehension to construction. I argue that synthetic biology, like other branches of engineering, aims to meet recognised needs, and to make the world more manipulable and controllable. But there are tensions within the field—some synthetic biologists have reservations about the extent to which biology can be engineered, and ask whether it is necessary to develop a new type of engineering when working with living systems. After exploring these debates, I turn to some of the broader consequences of making biology easier to engineer, particularly the deskilling and democratisation of the technology. I end by arguing that because synthetic biologists are skilled at bringing together both technical and social forces, they are appropriately described as 'heterogeneous engineers'.

"Basic research" is often used in science policy. It is commonly thought to refer to research that is directed solely toward acquiring new knowledge rather than any more practical objective. Recently, there has been considerable concern about the future of basic research because of purported changes in the nature of knowledge production and increasing pressures on scientists to demonstrate the social and economic benefits of their work. But is there really something special about basic research? The author argues here that "basic research" is a flexible and ambiguous concept that is drawn on by scientists to acquire prestige and resources. She shows that it is used for boundary work and gives examples of the work it does in different situations by drawing on interviews with scientists and policy makers on the category of basic research and the changes they have seen in it over time.

In this paper, we reflect on our experience as science and technology studies (STS) researchers who were members of the working group that produced A Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK in 2012. We explore how this initiative sought to govern an uncertain future and describe how it was successfully used to mobilize public funds for synthetic biology from the UK government. We discuss our attempts to incorporate the insights and sensibilities of STS into the policy process and why we chose to use the concept of responsible research and innovation to do so. We analyze how the roadmapping process, and the final report, narrowed and transformed our contributions to the roadmap. We show how difficult it is for STS researchers to influence policy when our ideas challenge deeply entrenched pervasive assumptions, framings, and narratives about how technological innovation necessarily leads to economic progress, about public reticence as a roadblock to that progress, and about the supposed separation between science and society. We end by reflecting on the constraints under which we were operating from the outset and on the challenges for STS in policy.

The ability to patent is bounded by a set of conditions that define what is patentable and what is not. In the 1980s, the problem of the patentability of genes was solved by the use of an analogy between genes and chemical compounds. In this article we analyze the process of the reduction of the gene to a chemical compound, and show how this analogy made the practice of gene patenting routine long before it came to public attention. When we did eventually see public controversies surrounding gene patenting in the 1990s, the chemical analogy allowed patent offices in the US and Europe to 'close down' these debates by presenting the issues as merely technical.