Synthetic Biology: Synthetic Biology in a Societal Context - Emma Frow

Dr. Frow suggests that discussions of synthetic biology, both amongst scientists and between scientists and society, need to be reframed in a different context. Conversations need to focus on current, rather than future, experiments and anticipate realistic results rather than speculate about outcomes that are only likely in science fiction. Scientists need to listen to and address questions from the public rather than assume they know how they will react to a new technology such as synthetic biology. And finally, synthetic biology would benefit from governance by the many involved parties rather than regulations imposed by a few perceived experts.

Speaker Biography:
Emma Frow is an assistant professor at Arizona State University in the School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering and the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. She received her PhD in biochemistry and cell signaling at Cambridge University and her MSc in Science and Technology Studies from the University of Edinburgh. Her current work focuses on setting standards in synthetic biology, the movement of ideas from engineering into biology, and objectivity in synthetic biology.

[JuliaHelen]

Just a non-expert here:
Intuitively/driven by common-sens, I confirm to have arrived at the same findings yet, I'm not as articulate as you summerize it in this presentation.

Thank you therefor!

I know is a 2016-presentation as set on YouTube yet, "Never too Late", right?

As matter of fact, I see these conversations still ongoing, which is a good thing, in my humble opinion.

[torealityAN]

It was mentioned that the discussion should be reframed around new considerations however, the new considerations are unable to replace or cover the worries voiced by the old ones. Public acceptance is an entirely different dimension than what synbio holds for public good, similarly regulating a technology is different than governing it. So instead of calling it a replacement, calling it a expansion or redirection might be a better idea.
In other words, while arguing that we should replace the words or the ideas we talk around, one should be able to more strongly support why it is useless or harmful to talk around those words. Otherwise, it really merely becomes a word-play.

[sadabetas]

at 26:50 she mentions laboratory skill and knowledge as a potential target for regualtion but this seems kind of hard and impractical to robustly secure knowledge about these skills both because they can be rediscovered/invented from more basic skills but also because in our globalized world more porous countries might leak "secrets" on regulation.

what are the alternatives to and practical ways to implement this idea?