A critical juncture for synthetic biology

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 …