IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v4y2010i1p92-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Kuzma
  • Todd Tanji

Abstract

The emerging field of synthetic biology (SB) is just entering policy debates. Reports from non‐governmental organizations, such as the ETC Group and the International Risk Governance Council, have recently been issued, but there have been few systematic analyses of the policy problems that we will likely face as this area develops. Biosecurity issues are the most defined; other societal oversight issues and implications have not been well explored. Although SB could assist in addressing pressing global challenges, such as sustainable and renewable energy, there are considerable societal concerns that accompany its development and applications. This article is designed to anticipate and prepare for these concerns by identifying policy problems associated with SB oversight, upstream of its development. Projected applications of SB are reviewed and a typology of them is developed. Key oversight policy problems are then identified based on historical experiences with other emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. Problems associated with biosecurity, biosafety, intellectual property, and ethics are discussed in relation to the typology of SB applications to identify applications of the highest potential concern. Finally, policy options for SB oversight are considered, preventative to promotional. We propose that different categories of SB application may warrant different oversight regimes: there might not be an appropriate “one size fits all” approach. We stop short of making specific recommendations, but suggest that the typology, problems, and oversight options identified in this article be used as a starting point for deliberative, democratic decisionmaking processes that take into account a wide range of perspectives about risk, economic impact, scientific progress, and moral reasoning in the design of oversight systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Kuzma & Todd Tanji, 2010. "Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 92-112, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:4:y:2010:i:1:p:92-112
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arti Rai & James Boyle, 2007. "Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    2. Erika Check, 2006. "Synthetic biologists try to calm fears," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7092), pages 388-389, May.
    3. Paarlberg, Robert L., 2000. "Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries," 2020 vision discussion papers 33, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Kathleen M Vogel, 2008. "Framing biosecurity: An alternative to the biotech revolution model?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 45-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nylund, Petra A. & Ferràs-Hernández, Xavier & Pareras, Luis & Brem, Alexander, 2022. "The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems based on enabling technologies: Evidence from synthetic biology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 728-735.
    2. Li Tang & Jennifer Kuzma & Xi Zhang & Xinyu Song & Yin Li & Hongxu Liu & Guangyuan Hu, 2023. "Synthetic biology and governance research in China: a 40-year evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5293-5310, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Groote, Hugo & Overholt, William & Ouma, James Okuro & Mugo, Stephen, 2003. "Assessing The Potential Impact Of Bt Maize In Kenya Using A Gis Based Model," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25854, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    3. Kynda R. Curtis & Klaus Moeltner, 2006. "Genetically Modified Food Market Participation and Consumer Risk Perceptions: A Cross‐Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 289-310, June.
    4. Esquivel-Sada, Daphne, 2022. "Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. De Groote, Hugo & Gitonga, Zachary & Kimenju, Simon & Keter, Fredric & Ngigi, Obadiah, 2015. "But what do rural consumers in Africa think about GM food?," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211565, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Stephen McGrail & A. Idil Gaziulusoy & Paul Twomey, 2015. "Framing Processes in the Envisioning of Low-Carbon, Resilient Cities: Results from Two Visioning Exercises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-35, July.
    7. Gal Hochman & Gordon C. Rausser & David Zilberman, 2011. "US versus EU Biotechnology Regulations and Comparative Advantage: Implications for Future Conflicts and Trade," Chapters, in: David Vogel & Johan Swinnen (ed.), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Paul Oldham & Stephen Hall & Oscar Forero, 2013. "Biological Diversity in the Patent System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Julius T. Mugwagwa, 2013. "Revealing the footprint: Supranational organizations and transnational governance of biotechnology in southern Africa," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 135-148, March.
    10. Watson, Robert & Crawford, Michael & Farley, Sara, 2003. "Strategic approaches to science and technology in development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3026, The World Bank.
    11. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    12. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2020. "Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    13. David Wafula & Norman Clark, 2005. "Science and governance of modern biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa-the case of Uganda," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 679-694.
    14. Fisher, Jill A. & Monahan, Torin, 2011. "The "biosecuritization" of healthcare delivery: Examples of post-9/11 technological imperatives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 545-552, February.
    15. Zaggl, Michael A. & Pottbäcker, Judith, 2021. "Facilitators and inhibitors for integrating expertise diversity in innovation teams: The case of plasmid exchange in molecular biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:4:y:2010:i:1:p:92-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.