IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v12y2018i1p88-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A decision analytic model to guide early‐stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Trump
  • Christopher Cummings
  • Jennifer Kuzma
  • Igor Linkov

Abstract

Synthetic biology (SB) involves the alteration of living cells and biomolecules for specific purposes. Products developed using these approaches could have significant societal benefits, but also pose uncertain risks to human and environmental health. Policymakers currently face decisions regarding how stringently to regulate and monitor various SB applications. This is a complex task, in which policymakers must balance uncertain economic, political, social, and health‐related decision factors associated with SB use. We argue that formal decision analytical tools could serve as a method to integrate available evidence‐based information and expert judgment on the impacts associated with SB innovations, synthesize that information into quantitative indicators, and serve as the first step toward guiding governance of these emerging technologies. For this paper, we apply multi‐criteria decision analysis to a specific case of SB, a micro‐robot based on biological cells called “cyberplasm.” We use data from a Delphi study to assess cyberplasm governance options and demonstrate how such decision tools may be used for assessments of SB oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Trump & Christopher Cummings & Jennifer Kuzma & Igor Linkov, 2018. "A decision analytic model to guide early‐stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 88-100, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:12:y:2018:i:1:p:88-100
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12142
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12142?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. Christopher A. Voigt, 2012. "Bacteria collaborate to sense arsenic," Nature, Nature, vol. 481(7379), pages 33-34, January.
    2. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    3. Theodor J Stewart, 2005. "Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 445-466, Springer.
    4. Jennifer Kuzma & Jordan Paradise & Gurumurthy Ramachandran & Jee‐Ae Kim & Adam Kokotovich & Susan M. Wolf, 2008. "An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1197-1220, October.
    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. Hanyu Lu & Lufei Huang, 2021. "Optimization of Shore Power Deployment in Green Ports Considering Government Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Marcin Rabe & Dalia Streimikiene & Yuriy Bilan, 2019. "The Concept of Risk and Possibilities of Application of Mathematical Methods in Supporting Decision Making for Sustainable Energy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Catrinu, M.D. & Nordgård, D.E., 2011. "Integrating risk analysis and multi-criteria decision support under uncertainty in electricity distribution system asset management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 663-670.
    4. T Kainulainen & P Leskinen & P Korhonen & A Haara & T Hujala, 2009. "A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 252-258, February.
    5. Greco, Salvatore, 1997. "A new PCCA method: IDRA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 587-601, May.
    6. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    7. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    8. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    9. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.
    10. Iwasaki, S & Tone, K, 1998. "A Search Model with Subjective Judgments: Auditing of Incorrect Tax Declarations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 249-261, April.
    11. A. Psomas & I. Vryzidis & A. Spyridakos & M. Mimikou, 2021. "MCDA approach for agricultural water management in the context of water–energy–land–food nexus," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 689-723, March.
    12. Jennifer Kuzma & Susanna Priest, 2010. "Nanotechnology, Risk, and Oversight: Learning Lessons from Related Emerging Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1688-1698, November.
    13. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Jaroslav Myšiak, 2006. "Consistency of the Results of Different MCA Methods: A Critical Review," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 257-277, April.
    15. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Corrado Zoppi, 2014. "Does Landscape Protection Really Matter? An Assessment Based on Multicriteria Analysis," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 47-69.
    17. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    18. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    19. Heinrich, G. & Basson, L. & Cohen, B. & Howells, M. & Petrie, J., 2007. "Ranking and selection of power expansion alternatives for multiple objectives under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 2350-2369.
    20. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.

    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:12:y:2018:i:1:p:88-100. 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.