Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists.

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2018-09-10 DOI:10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1
Afke Wieke Betten, Virgil Rerimassie, Jacqueline E W Broerse, Dirk Stemerding, Frank Kupper
{"title":"Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists.","authors":"Afke Wieke Betten,&nbsp;Virgil Rerimassie,&nbsp;Jacqueline E W Broerse,&nbsp;Dirk Stemerding,&nbsp;Frank Kupper","doi":"10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
构建未来场景,作为促进未来合成生物学家负责任研究和创新的工具。
合成生物学的新兴领域,即为有用目的设计和构建生物部件、装置和系统,可能会同时解决一些问题,也会提出其他问题。为了有力地开发应用程序并符合公众利益,在开发的早期阶段组织反射性评估和参与策略是很重要的。在这种背景下,与负责任研究与创新(RRI)概念相关的举措也出现了。本文描述了这样一个倡议:构建未来场景,以探索潜在的合成生物学创新的合理性和可取性。我们指导参加大型国际基因工程机器(iGEM)竞赛的合成生物学学生团队构建场景,旨在探索潜在合成生物学创新的合理性和可取性。在本文中,我们旨在研究构建这样的未来场景在多大程度上以及如何对RRI做出贡献。为了做到这一点,我们进行了观察和采访,以了解通过从四个维度构建场景来促进什么样的学习和反思,这在RRI文献中有突出的讨论:预期、包容、自反和反应。在我们关注构建未来情景如何有助于在项目(和个人)层面加强RRI的同时,我们还考虑了我们的实验在iGEM竞争中可以在多大程度上促进RRI,甚至可能在更大的科学研究计划中激发“社会科学家”和“自然科学家”之间的建设性合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1