Search

The fast-paced field of synthetic biology is fundamentally changing the global biosecurity framework. Current biosecurity regulations and strategies are based on previous governance paradigms for pathogen-oriented security, recombinant DNA research, and broader concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many scholarly discussions and biosecurity practitioners are therefore concerned that synthetic biology outpaces established biosafety and biosecurity measures to prevent deliberate and malicious or inadvertent and accidental misuse of synthetic biology's processes or products. This commentary proposes three strategies to improve biosecurity: Security must be treated as an investment in the future applicability of the technology; social scientists and policy makers should be engaged early in technology development and forecasting; and coordination among global stakeholders is necessary to ensure acceptable levels of risk., (© 2020 The Authors. Published under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.

Shared ownership of property and resources is a longstanding challenge throughout history that has been amplifying with the increasing development of industrial and postindustrial societies. Where governments, project planners, and commercial developers seek to develop new infrastructure, industrial projects, and various other land-and resource-intensive tasks, veto power shared by various local stakeholders can complicate or halt progress. Risk communication has been used as an attempt to address stakeholder concerns in these contexts, but has demonstrated shortcomings. These coordination failures between project planners and stakeholders can be described as a specific kind of social dilemma that we describe as the "tragedy of the anticommons." To overcome such dilemmas, we demonstrate how a two-step process can directly address public mistrust of project planners and public perceptions of limited decision-making authority. This approach is examined via two separate empirical field experiments in Portugal and Tunisia, where public resistance and anticommons problems threatened to derail emerging industrial projects. In both applications, an intervention is undertaken to address initial public resistance to such projects, where specific public stakeholders and project sponsors collectively engaged in a hypothesis-testing process to identify and assess human and environmental health risks associated with proposed industrial facilities. These field experiments indicate that a rigorous attempt to address public mistrust and perceptions of power imbalances and change the pay-off structure of the given dilemma may help overcome such anticommons problems in specific cases, and may potentially generate enthusiasm and support for such projects by local publics moving forward., (© 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.)

Synthetic biology is an emerging technology with potential benefits to various fields, yet also contains potential risks to human and environmental health. The field remains in an emerging state with limited quantitative guidance and a small but growing population of international researchers that conduct work within this field. Given the uncertain nature of this technology, an adaptive and anticipatory governance framework may be necessary to balance the potential benefits that may accrue from the technology's continued research alongside a desire to reduce or eliminate potential risks that may arise. However, such developments must account for the unique political and institutional factors that form a government's risk culture - something that can facilitate or impede the development of adaptive synthetic biology governance moving forward. The TAPIC framework helps illustrate those factors that are essential to develop good governance for emerging technologies like synthetic biology. Specifically, an application of TAPIC to synthetic biology governance indicates that the factors of accountability, participation, and integrity must be bolstered to improve technology governance in governments like with the United States, European Union, and Singapore., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)