Who is intervening in synthetic biology?

• In Event: Questioning Intervention with and within Science and Technology Studies: A Roundtable

Abstract

The Arsenic Biosensor Collaboration is a synthetic biology project that seeks to genetically-engineer a bacterium to produce a coloured output in the presence of arsenic – the project’s desired aim is to use this emerging biotechnology to produce a cheap, safe and easy-to-use device or kit to test for the presence of arsenic in well-water in LMICs such as Nepal and Bangladesh. Arsenic in groundwater in this region has been described by the WHO as “the largest mass poisoning of a population in history” and experts have highlighted the unmet need for robust and context-appropriate testing techniques. Given the well-defined area of application – aimed at addressing a global health challenge in South Asia – the project’s team-members found themselves facing a number of ‘beyond the bench’ questions including ethical, societal, cultural and regulatory issues: issues that STS often grapples with. This appears to have resulted in an almost intuitive/amateur application of well-known STS interventionist approaches like CTA and RTTA – though these were rarely framed or named as such. Through this case study, we chart the process of increased attunement and inclusion of RRI issues into this synthetic biology project and examine the role that theoretically-grounded STS knowledge did or did not play. Specifically, we look at how team-members’ responsibilities within the project changed, “from bench-scientist to [amateur] social scientist”. We also briefly consider the narrative that has since emerged surrounding this and other synthetic biology projects on “doing RRI well” or “intervening responsibly”.

Author

• Lalitha Sundaram, University of Cambridge