Blog17th January 2025
Exploring the opportunities of engineering biology is not new. For decades we have been discussing its promise and risks – revisiting old and identifying new ethical questions.
Our work assessing the ethical implications of research using human stem cell-based embryo models (SCBEMs) and neural organoids has showcased how identification of ethical ‘red lines’ can assist policymakers in their decisions of whether to utilise soft legislation or hard laws. And I would argue that, if it is robustly considered, ethical insight like this that can ensure we are creating the agile regulations and policies we need to support innovation for societal benefit while maintaining public confidence and trust.
Through stakeholder engagement we know narratives that overtly link the Government’s prioritisation of engineering biology to our country’s economic potential and growth are causing some experts to feel funding frameworks are putting potential profit before public benefit. And that despite the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DIST) being clear in its ambition to position engineering biology as a ‘responsible innovation’ that can ‘foster public confidence’, so far, there has been an omittance of the publics’ voice in some of the early dialogues around synthetic biology. Ensuring responsible innovation means identifying and addressing public concerns and also involving publics in shaping the role engineering biology has for the kind of future we want.
It was encouraging to see a recent survey suggest most people living in the UK believe engineering biology will have a positive impact on science in the next decade. But there is a limitation to the reassurance we can gather here as the survey also showed very few members of the public feel able to adequately explain what engineering biology is. The survey also showed a desire for regulation, transparency and information.
There is clearly work to be done if we are going to ensure meaningful public engagement in and about engineering biology. Some may be wary of putting this time in, believing that if we find the public is apprehensive or hesitant in some way that this will then slow developments. I would seek to soothe those concerns and can provide two examples in our past work on mitochondrial DNA transfer and genome editing in animals where the public insights we generated have helped decision-makers to create national policies that are truly reflective of our societal values and expectations of science.
There will be trade-offs to consider in the field of engineering biology, which we need to confront openly, and ethics can help us to navigate these tensions. It is only by allocating the time required to meaningfully deliberate and involving a diverse range of publics that we can be sure we are doing all we can to reach the best outcome possible.
The recently published House of Lords report on engineering biology stresses the importance of public acceptability and engagement, urging the Government and funders to prioritise dialogue as well as research into public attitudes. We look forward to supporting that endeavour, as we know that public deliberation can help identify ethical concerns, support ethical analysis and lead to better decision making about this area of research and innovation – an area that impacts so many areas of life.