Playing God and tampering with nature: popular labels for real concerns in synthetic biology

Tragic Flaws and Practical Wisdom: Public reasoning behind preferences for different genetic technologies

Advanced bioengineering is often described as a transformative field with the potential to reshape aspects of society and environments. However, it remains largely unfamiliar to publics, compounded by its highly abstract and complex technical details. Increasingly, there have been calls for public engagement that grounds the field in concrete, real-world uses. Furthermore, there have been calls to move beyond the limits of archetypal or intrinsic concerns by encouraging people to flesh out and justify their support or lack thereof. This national focus group study investigated views across Australia regarding four novel applications. By presenting these technologies in contextualised scenarios incorporating characters with a range of perspectives, it answers the call for greater frame awareness. We conclude that publics are more than capable of weighing and negotiating between multiple frames at once, providing their own in order to justify whether to accept or reject one of the technologies.

Rethinking progress: harmonizing the discourse on genetically modified crops

Genetically modified crops (GM crops) also known as biotech crops are crops that have been altered through genetic engineering techniques and under cultivation for approximately 28 years. By October 2024, over 30 nations have approved the cultivation of GM crops. The global area utilized for biotech crop production has reached 206.3 million hectares. Despite the substantial growth in the cultivation of these crops, debate continues between proponents and opponents of GM crops. In this article, critical concerns and common ground between the arguments of both sides were described. The main issues addressed include the naturalness of GM crops, religious perspectives, beneficial aspects, safety issues, socio-economic impacts and intellectual property rights. We argue that the classification GM crops as unnatural is a claim that lacks scientific reality. In a similar vein, comparing GM technology to the act of playing God is inappropriate. Moreover, the belief that GM crops do not contribute to yield improvements is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Additionally, the claim that foods produced from GM crops are unsafe for human consumption holds unseen concerns that is not on the ground. We have also highlighted the necessity of implementing intellectual property rights that support seed developers for a limited duration without violating farmers' rights. In conclusion, as a consumer has the right to know what they eat, labeling of GM food products fosters transparency and enhance consumer autonomy.

Public attitudes to potential synthetic cells applications: Pragmatic support and ethical acceptance

Synthetic cells constructed bottom-up represent a novel direction in Synthetic Biology. It has the potential to deepen the scientific understanding of life and, in the longer run, to open up new pathways for medical and environmental applications. Mapping preliminary public attitudes towards emerging technologies is an important step to further societal discussion and stakeholder participation. We conducted a vignette survey with nationally representative samples from 13 European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and UK; N =  8,382) to explore public attitudes towards prospective synthetic cell technologies, such as anticancer therapy, CO2 emissions conversion to biofuel, and industrial waste recycling. Using data-driven techniques, we built a decision tree model of the factors affecting participants' attitudes and summarized the prevalent themes behind one's motivation. Our findings suggest substantial public support for prospective synthetic cell applications in the societally beneficial fields, most notably in healthcare.

Narratives in European debate concerning new genomic techniques

Given the complexity of agricultural problems, it is essential to develop acceptable solutions for various stakeholders with diverse knowledge, viewpoints, and preferences. However, European public opinion has become highly polarized, making constructive discussions on these issues difficult. We present the results of the narrative analysis of media debate on new genomic techniques. The study identified two primary narrative groups: 'precaution-focused' and 'innovation-focused.' The former emphasizes caution, potential risks, and the need for stringent regulation, while the latter highlights benefits, progress, and the promise of genome editing for sustainable agricultural practices. Within each group of narratives, several distinct narratives were identified. The research has revealed that despite the high polarization, the narratives shared important values and beliefs. Going beyond the dividing narratives and concentrating on common values can depolarize the debate and set the stage for new narratives, enabling constructive debate, concentrating on solving problems, and maximizing collective outcomes.

Navigating the 'moral hazard' argument in synthetic biology's application

Synthetic biology has immense potential to ameliorate widespread environmental damage. The promise of such technology could, however, be argued to potentially risk the public, industry or governments not curtailing their environmentally damaging behavior or even worse exploit the possibility of this technology to do further damage. In such cases, there is the risk of a worse outcome than if the technology was not deployed. This risk is often couched as an objection to new technologies, that the technology produces a moral hazard. This paper describes how to navigate a moral hazard argument and mitigate the possibility of a moral hazard. Navigating moral hazard arguments and mitigating the possibility of a moral hazard will improve the public and environmental impact of synthetic biology.

Ethical Eggs: Can Synthetic Biology Disrupt the Global Egg Production Industry?

Commercial egg production relies on the industry-accepted practice of culling day-old male chicks, which are a live by-product of the egg production industry. Researchers are exploring the use of a transgenic marker gene to allow early identification of male embryos in ovo at the point of lay, rather than upon hatching. Here we examine social acceptability of this biotechnology-enabled solution to sex selection, which addresses the key ethical issue of culling and improved sustainability of food systems. A national online survey (N = 1148) measured psychological factors influencing public support for the development of the technology and willingness to purchase eggs derived from the novel process. Most participants expressed at least a moderate intention to support the development of gene marking technology, with 1 in 5 people expressing strong support. Participants expressed moderate to high agreement that gene marking of chickens would: (a) help reduce or eliminate the practice of culling male chicks in the egg-laying industry (response efficacy), and; (b) that this new synbio approach to sex selection may be better than current methods of identifying and removing male chicks during egg production (relative advantage). Of those participants who consumed eggs, almost 60% reported they would be moderately to strongly willing to purchase eggs derived from the gene marking process. A partially-mediated path model comprising both intention to support and willingness to buy eggs (R2 = 0.78) showed that key factors involved in decision-making, in addition to response efficacy and relative advantage, were evaluative attitudes toward the technology (e.g., was the technology bad/good, risky/safe, unethical/ethical) and emotional reactions. These results suggest that consumers may be primarily basing their decisions and behavioral choices on how valuable they perceive the novel gene marking solution, reflecting on how it compares favorably to current culling practices, yielding a range of benefits such as higher animal welfare, improved sustainability, and reduced waste.