Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • EMBO reports (Home)
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Life Science Alliance
Login

   

Search

Advanced Search

Journal

  • Home
  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections
  • Review Series & Focuses

Authors & Referees

  • Submit
  • Author Guidelines
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Bibliometrics
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access

Info

  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • Media Partners
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • Latest Online

Science & Society

A critical juncture for synthetic biology

Lessons from nanotechnology could inform public discourse and further development of synthetic biology
Benjamin D Trump, Jeffrey C Cegan, Emily Wells, Jeffrey Keisler, View ORCID ProfileIgor Linkov
DOI 10.15252/embr.201846153 | Published online 12.06.2018
EMBO reports (2018) e46153
Benjamin D Trump
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Risk and Decision Science Team, Concord, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey C Cegan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Risk and Decision Science Team, Concord, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Wells
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Risk and Decision Science Team, Concord, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey Keisler
University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Igor Linkov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Risk and Decision Science Team, Concord, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Author Affiliations

  1. Benjamin D Trump1,†,
  2. Jeffrey C Cegan1,†,
  3. Emily Wells1,†,
  4. Jeffrey Keisler2 and
  5. Igor Linkov (igor.linkov{at}usace.army.mil)1,†
  1. 1U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Risk and Decision Science Team, Concord, MA, USA
  2. 2University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
  1. ↵† This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

View Abstract
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process
Loading

EMBO Reports (2018) e46153

The development of new technologies and their applications often have to navigate regulatory limitations and public attitudes, expectations or resistance—the trajectories of genetically modified crops in the Europe or the success of in vitro fertilization after initial resistance demonstrate how public attitudes and regulation can determine if a technology succeeds or fails. Academic scientists and companies working on new technologies increasingly must consider these factors and mitigate real and perceived risks of the technology so as to avoid overreaching regulation and public resistance that could threaten innovation. In this context, social science takes an important role by gauging public attitudes about if and how the emergence of new technologies stokes fears and raises hopes. This article illustrates how the natural sciences and social sciences interacted in the emerging fields of synthetic biology and nanotechnology, specifically the timing and rise of social science research and commentary on the potential impact and risks of these emerging technologies.

Generally, it is expected that physical sciences research would grow earlier and faster than the social sciences owing to the responsive and reflexive nature of social science inquiry.

In the case of nanotechnology, the private sector was afforded two decades of growth without commensurate academic discourse from social scientists, while in the case of synthetic biology, both physical and social science have been intertwined from the very beginning. Ignorance of social science discourse could hinder research on synthetic biology and commercial opportunities [1]. Given the broad benefits this technology may offer, it is important for industry to proactively engage with the general public and regulatory community to foster transparent and responsible dialogue regarding the field's best …

View Full Text

Subscribers, please sign in with your username and password.

Log in using your username and password

Enter your EMBO Reports username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$35.00

Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.

EMBO Members please login here to access the journals

Subscribe to the Journal

EMBO Journal

EMBO Reports

Recommend to your Librarian

EMBO Journal

EMBO Reports

 

 

Next Article in this Issue
Back to top

  • PDF
  • Share
  • Export
  • Print
Loading

PDF

In this Issue
Volume 20, Issue 2
01 February 2019
EMBO reports: 20 (2)
About the cover
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted

Article

  • Article
    • Quantitative trends in publications
    • Social sciences in synthetic biology
    • Lessons from nanotechnology
    • Current concerns of the public
    • Discussion
    • Conflict of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Transparent Process

Related Content

More Science & Society

  • Homeopathy—where is the science?
    Natalie Grams
    EMBO reports : e47761
  • Finding levers for culture change in science—the power of glocal
    Elinor Thompson
    EMBO reports : e46980
  • The anti‐vaccination debate and the microbiome
    Stephan Guttinger
    EMBO reports : e47709
More Science & Society

Related Articles

Cited By...

Request Permissions

Subject Areas

  • Synthetic Biology & Biotechnology
  • S&S: Media & Publishing
  • S&S: Politics, Policy & Law

Journal

  • Latest Online
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Bibliometrics
  • E-Mail Editorial Office
  • Privacy Policy

Authors & References

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors & Board
  • Transparent Process
  • Author Guidelines
  • Referee Guidelines
  • Open Access
  • Submit

Info

  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions & Access
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Advertise & Sponsor
  • News & Press
  • Recommend to Librarian
  • Customer Service

EMBO

  • Funding & Awards
  • Events
  • Science Policy
  • Members
  • About EMBO

Online ISSN  1469-3178

Copyright© 2019 EMBO

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of all modern web browsers. Older browsers may not display correctly.