Safety,security, and serving the public interest in synthetic biology

This article describes what may be done by scientists and by the biotechnology industry, generally, to address the safety and security challenges in synthetic biology. Given the technical expertise requirements for developing sound policy options, as well as the importance of these issues to the future of the industry, scientists who work in synthetic biology should be informed about these challenges and get involved in shaping policies relevant to the field.     

Shaping the science–industry–policy interface in synthetic biology

Current advances in the emerging field of synthetic biology and the improvements in key technologies promise great impacts, not only on future scientific development, but also on the economy. In this paper we will adopt the triple helix concept for analyzing the early stages of a new field of science and innovation, namely synthetic biology. Synthetic biology is based on the creation and assembly of parts in order to create new and more complex structures and functions. These features of synthetic biology raise questions related to standardization and intellectual property, but also to security and public perception issues that go beyond the classical biotechnology discussions. These issues concern all involved actors in the synthetic biology field and affect the interrelationship between science, industry and policy. Based on the results of the recently finished EU FP-6 funded project TESSY (http://www.tessy-europe.de), the article analyzes these issues. Additionally, it illustrates the setting of clear framework conditions for synthetic biology research and development and the identification and definition of common goals for the future development of the field which will be needed for efficient science–industry–policy interaction. It was shown that it will be crucial to develop approaches that consider the needs of science and industry, on the one hand, and comply with the expectations of society, on the other hand. As synthetic biology is a global activity, the involvement of national decision-makers in international initiatives will further stimulate the development of the field.     

Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology

This article considers professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology, reporting on social science interviews done with scientists, science journal editors, members of science advisory boards and authors of nongovernmental policy reports on synthetic biology. After summarizing their observations about the potential advantages and disadvantages of the professionalization of synthetic biology, we analyze professionalization as a strategy that overcomes dichotomies found in the current debates about synthetic biology governance, specifically “top down” versus “bottom up” governance and scientific fact versus public values. Professionalization combines community and state, fact and value. Like all governance options, professionalization has limitations, particularly regarding war and peace. It is best conceptualized as potentially part of a wider range of governance mechanisms working in concert: a “web of prevention”.     

Safe and Sound? Scientists’ Understandings of Public Engagement in Emerging Biotechnologies

Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders’ views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation.     

合成生物学伦理、法律与社会问题探讨

合成生物学是以基因组学、系统生物学知识和分子生物学技术为基础,综合了科学与工程的一门新兴交叉学科。它使生命科学和生物技术研发进入了以人工设计、合成自然界中原本不曾出现的人造生命体系,以及对这些人工体系进行体内、体外优化,或利用这些人造生命体系研究自然生命规律为目标的新时代。然而,合成生物学研究在迅速发展、表现出巨大潜力和应用前景的同时,也引发了社会各界对相关社会、伦理、安全,以及知识产权等问题的重视与讨论。就世界各国针对合成生命对传统意义上生命概念的挑战、合成生物学产品存在的潜在风险危害、合成生物学研究的风险评估与监管等问题进行回顾综述和相关探讨。     

Options for a rational dialogue on the acceptance of biotechnology

This paper explores how framing discussions about biotechnology in different ways influences how scientists, policy makers, and members of the public communicate with each other, to either inhibit or promote acceptance. It argues for the use of new techniques to create a rational dialogue with the public, based on scientific knowledge, that allows them to fully participate as informed stakeholders in debates about new technologies. Several different outlooks on the role of science in society are presented. Effectively communicating these different positions to the public requires innovative approaches. Drawing on advances in scientific communication practices, we briefly describe four principles that consider not only the scientific content, but also its delivery. New views need to be delivered with confidence, to be sensible within existing frameworks of understanding and not overwhelming, to reveal both potentially positive and negative aspects, and to promote interactive discussion with stakeholders. The authors conclude using the regional initiative in Southern Africa--the African Policy Dialogues on Biotechnology--as an illustration of this approach, where discussions started by first seeking agreement about establishing a process for dialogue, rather than initially trying to achieve consensus on any substantive points.     

The synthetic biology puzzle: a qualitative study on public reflections towards a governance framework

Synthetic biology is currently one of the most debated emerging biotechnologies. The societal assessment of this technology is primarily based on contributions by scientists and policy makers, who focus mainly on technical challenges and possible risks. While public dialogue is given, it is yet rather limited. This study explores public debates concerning synthetic biology based on a focus group study with citizens from Austria and Germany and contextualises the analysed public views with content from policy reports and previous empirical studies on public engagement. The findings suggest that discussants favoured a gradual implementation process of synthetic biology, which is receptive to questions about the distribution of possible benefits. The discussed topics correspond in many ways with content from policy reports and former investigations, yet the emphasis of the discussions was different for many aspects.     

Embracing Complexity and Context to Improve Science Communication

Members of the public play a primary role in successful implementation of wildlife management plans, making communication between scientists and the public a vital component of wildlife management. Although there is substantial public interest in the health of ungulate populations, stakeholder perspectives can vary widely, rendering a single approach to communication ineffective. To improve science communication, we characterized perspectives regarding issues negatively affecting mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Wyoming, USA. We used Q methodology, a mixed quantitative-qualitative approach where participants ranked a series of statements followed by semi-structured interviews, to identify shared perspectives. We interviewed individuals (n = 37) representing prominent stakeholder groups (e.g., ranchers, hunters, conservation non-profits) in Wyoming. We identified 3 perspectives (52% of variance explained) that captured shared views regarding what factors are negatively affecting mule deer: bottom-up (n = 17 participants; 26% variance), human contributions (n = 9; 14% variance), and top-down (n = 8; 12% variance) perspectives. Most participants shared the idea that mule deer are being negatively affected, but participants diverged in views as to the primary issues. Perspectives ranged from being focused on bottom-up factors (e.g., habitat fragmentation, condition of winter ranges) to top-down factors (e.g., predation, disease) to factors focused on human contributions (e.g., human activity, public and political interests). Based on how participants diverged in perspectives and their interest in mule deer management, we discuss opportunities for scientists to improve communication by incorporating ecological complexity and nuance, moving towards a 2-way dialogue of communication, and sharing their own first-hand experiences in future communications with stakeholders. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society.     

Future societal issues in industrial biotechnology

Three international stakeholder meetings were organized by The Netherlands-based "Kluyver Center for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation" with the objective to identify the future societal issues in the field of industrial biotechnology and to develop a coordinated strategy for public dialogue. The meetings resulted in five unanimous recommendations: (i) that science, industry and the European Commission in conjunction with other stakeholders create a comprehensive roadmap towards a bio-based economy; (ii) that the European Commission initiate a series of round-table meetings to further articulate the views, interests and responsibilities of the relevant stakeholders and to define policy; (iii) that the development of new innovative communication activities is stimulated to increase public engagement and to discuss the ways that we do or do not want technologies to shape our common future; (iv) that further social studies are undertaken on public attitudes and behaviors to the bio-based economy and that novel methods are developed to assess public views of future technological developments; and (v) that the concept of sustainability is further operationalized and taken as a core value driving research and development and policy making.     

Citizen science and wildlife biology: Synergies and challenges

Citizen science (CS) has evolved over the past decades as a working method involving interested citizens in scientific research, for example by reporting observations, taking measurements or analysing data. In the past, research on animal behaviour has been benefitting from contributions of citizen scientists mainly in the field of ornithology but the full potential of CS in ecological and behavioural sciences is surely still untapped. Here, we present case studies that successfully applied CS to research projects in wildlife biology and discuss potentials and challenges experienced. Our case studies cover a broad range of opportunities: large‐scale CS projects with interactive online tools on bird song dialects, engagement of stakeholders as citizen scientists to reduce human–wildlife conflicts, involvement of students of primary and secondary schools in CS projects as well as collaboration with the media leading to successful recruitment of citizen scientists. Each case study provides a short overview of the scientific questions and how they were approached to showcase the potentials and challenges of CS in wildlife biology. Based on the experience of the case studies, we highlight how CS may support research in wildlife biology and emphasise the value of fostering communication in CS to improve recruitment of participants and to facilitate learning and mutual trust among different groups of interest (e.g., researchers, stakeholders, students). We further show how specific training for the participants may be needed to obtain reliable data. We consider CS as a suitable tool to enhance research in wildlife biology through the application of open science procedures (i.e., open access to articles and the data on publicly available repositories) to support transparency and sharing experiences.     

Ensuring the security of synthetic biology—towards a 5P governance strategy

Over recent years the label “synthetic biology” has been attached to a number of diverse research and commercial activities, ranging from the search for a minimal cell to the quick delivery of customized genes by DNA synthesis companies. Based on the analysis of biosecurity issues surrounding synthetic biology during the SYNBIOSAFE project, this paper will first provide a rationale for taking security, in addition to safety aspects of this new field, seriously. It will then take stock of the initiatives and measures that have already been taken in this area and will lastly try to map out future areas of activities in order to minimise the security risks emanating from this promising new field of scientific inquiry and technological progress.     

Freedom and Responsibility in Synthetic Genomics: The Synthetic Yeast Project

First introduced in 2011, the Synthetic Yeast Genome (Sc2.0) Project is a large international synthetic genomics project that will culminate in the first eukaryotic cell (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) with a fully synthetic genome. With collaborators from across the globe and from a range of institutions spanning from do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) to commercial enterprises, it is important that all scientists working on this project are cognizant of the ethical and policy issues associated with this field of research and operate under a common set of principles. In this commentary, we survey the current ethics and regulatory landscape of synthetic biology and present the Sc2.0 Statement of Ethics and Governance to which all members of the project adhere. This statement focuses on four aspects of the Sc2.0 Project: societal benefit, intellectual property, safety, and self-governance. We propose that such project-level agreements are an important, valuable, and flexible model of self-regulation for similar global, large-scale synthetic biology projects in order to maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms.     

总体国家安全观下合成生物学风险和应对策略研究*

合成生物学是近年来兴起的一门兼材料学、医学和信息学等学科特性的交叉学科,在促进医学进步和科技转化应用的同时,也在总体国家安全内涵中被赋予了特殊的重要地位。如何在新时期应对错综复杂的安全形势和严峻挑战,是世界各国和国际社会所面临的科技治理和生物安全的重要命题。重点介绍合成生物技术相关生物武器威胁、生物恐怖威胁、生物安全国际公约条例、生物安全伦理治理框架,总结近年来合成生物技术领域生物安全风险相关问题,提出合成生物学安全风险应对策略和国家总体安全观下科技发展建议。     

Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health

The emerging field of synthetic biology has the potential to improve global health. For example, synthetic biology could contribute to efforts at vaccine development in a context in which vaccines and immunization have been identified by the international community as being crucial to international development efforts and, in particular, the millennium development goals. However, past experience with innovations shows that realizing a technology’s potential can be difficult and complex. To achieve better societal embedding of synthetic biology and to make sure it reaches its potential, science and technology development should be made more inclusive and interactive. Responsible research and innovation is based on the premise that a broad range of stakeholders with different views, needs and ideas should have a voice in the technological development and deployment process. The interactive learning and action (ILA) approach has been developed as a methodology to bring societal stakeholders into a science and technology development process. This paper proposes an ILA in five phases for an international effort, with national case studies, to develop socially robust applications of synthetic biology for global health, based on the example of vaccine development. The design is based on results of a recently initiated ILA project on synthetic biology; results from other interactive initiatives described in the literature; and examples of possible applications of synthetic biology for global health that are currently being developed.     

Are we doomed to repeat history? A model of the past using tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and conservation biology to anticipate the future

Studies of conservation biology involving tiger beetles have become increasingly common in the last 15 years. Governments and NGOs in several countries have considered tiger beetles in making policy decisions of national conservation efforts and have found tiger beetles useful organisms for arguing broad conservation issues. We trace the evolution of the relationship between tiger beetle studies and conservation biology and propose that this history may in itself provide a model for anticipating developments and improvements in the ability of conservation biology to find effective goals, gather appropriate data, and better communicate generalizations to non-scientific decision makers, the public, and other scientists. According to the General Continuum of Scientific Perspectives on Nature model, earliest biological studies begin with natural history and concentrate on observations in the field and specimen collecting, followed by observing and measuring in the field, manipulations in the field, observations and manipulations in the laboratory, and finally enter theoretical science including systems analysis and mathematical models. Using a balance of historical and analytical approaches, we tested the model using scientific studies of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and the field of conservation biology. Conservation biology and tiger beetle studies follow the historical model, but the results for conservation biology also suggest a more complex model of simultaneous parallel developments. We use these results to anticipate ways to better meet goals in conservation biology, such as actively involving amateurs, avoiding exclusion of the public, and improving language and style in scientific communication. CXLV, Studies of Tiger Beetles     

Defining the spectrum of genome policy

Many achievements in the genome sciences have been facilitated by policies that have prioritized genome research, secured funding and raised public and health-professional awareness. Such policies should address ethical, legal and social concerns, and are as important to the scientific and commercial development of the field as the science itself. On occasion, policy issues take precedence over science, particularly when impasses are encountered or when public health or money is at stake. Here we discuss the spectrum of current issues and debates in genome policy, and how to actively engage all affected stakeholders to promote effective policy making.     

The 'atom-splitting' moment of synthetic biology. Nuclear physics and synthetic biology share common features

Synthetic biology and nuclear physics share many commonalities in terms of public perception and funding. Synthetic biologists could learn valuable lessons from the history of the atomic bomb and nuclear power.On 16 July 1945, in the desert of New Mexico, the first nuclear bomb was exploded. It was a crucial moment in the history of the physical sciences—proof positive of the immense forces at work in the heart of atoms—and inevitably changed the world. In 2010, a team at the J. Craig Venter Research Institute in the USA first created artificial life by inserting a synthetic 1.08 megabase pair genome into a mycoplasma cell that lacked its own. They demonstrated that this new cell with its man-made genome was capable of surviving and reproducing [1]. It was a colossal achievement for biology, and its significance might well rank alongside the detonation of the first atomic bomb in terms of scientific advance.…as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politicsThere are several similarities between twentieth century physics, and twentieth and twenty-first century biology. The nuclear explosion in New Mexico was the result of decades of research and the first splitting of an atom in Otto Hahn''s laboratory in 1938. It ushered in an era of new ideas and hopes for a brighter future built on the power of the atom, but the terrible potential of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare ultimately overshadowed these hopes and changed the course of science and politics. The crucial achievement of synthetic life is a strikingly similar event; the culmination of decades of research that started with its own atom-splitting moment: recombinant DNA technology. It promises to bring forth a new era for biology and enable a huge variety of applications for industry, medicine and the military. However, as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politics. Biology should therefore take note of the consequences of nuclear physics'' iconic event in 1945 for science, politics and society.To appreciate the similarities of these breakthroughs and their consequences for society, it is necessary to understand the historical perspective. The pivotal discoveries for both disciplines were related to fundamental elements of nature. The rise of nuclear physics can be traced back to the discovery of neutrons by James Chadwick in 1932 [2]. Neutrons are essential to the stability of atoms as they insulate the nucleus against the repulsive forces of its positively charged protons. However, the addition of an extra neutron can destabilize the nucleus and cause it to split, releasing more neutrons and a tremendous amount of energy. This nuclear fission reaction was first described by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938. Leo Szilard realized the possibility of using the neutrons released from the fission of heavy atoms to trigger a nuclear chain reaction to release huge quantities of energy. The first successful chain reactions took place in 1942 in Germany at Leipzig University in the laboratory of Robert Döpel, and in the USA at the University of Chicago in the so-called Chicago Pile-1 reactor, developed by Enrico Fermi. These first nuclear reactors provided the proof of concept for using a nuclear chain reaction as a source of energy. However, even before that, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard wrote to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, suggesting that the US government should develop a new powerful bomb based on nuclear fission. President Roosevelt created the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb in 1945.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public…The Cold War and the mutually assured nuclear destruction between the USA and the USSR fanned widespread fears about a nuclear Third World War that could wipe out human civilization; Robert Oppenheimer, one of the physicists who developed the atomic bomb, was actually among the first to warn of the spectre of nuclear war. By contrast, the civilian use of nuclear physics, mainly in the form of nuclear reactors, promised a brave new future based on harnessing the power of the atom, but it also generated increasing concerns about the harmful effects of radioactivity, the festering problems of nuclear waste and the safety of nuclear power plants. The nuclear disasters at the Chernobyl reactor in 1986 and the Fukushima power plant in 2011 heightened these concerns to the point that several nations might now abandon nuclear energy altogether.The fundamental discovery in biology, crucial to the creation of synthetic organisms was the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson [3]. The realization that DNA molecules have a universal chemical structure to store and pass on genetic information was the intellectual basis for the development of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology and genetic engineering. Twenty years after this discovery, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer first transferred DNA from one organism into another by using endonucleases and DNA ligases [4]. This early toolkit was later expanded to include DNA sequencing and synthesizing technologies as well as PCR, which culminated in the creation of the first artificial organism in 2010. Craig Venter''s team synthesized a complete bacterial chromosome from scratch and transferred it into a bacterial cell lacking a genome: the resulting cell was able to synthesize a new set of proteins and to replicate. This proof of concept experiment now enables scientists to pursue further challenges, such as creating organisms with fully designed genomes to achieve agro-biotechnological, commercial, medical and military goals.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public, as many fear that genetically modified bacteria could escape the laboratory and wreak havoc, or that the technology could be abused to create biological weapons. Unlike with nuclear physics, the scientists working on rDNA technology anticipated these concerns very early on. In 1974, a group of scientists led by Paul Berg decided to suspend research into rDNA technology to discuss possible hazards and regulation. This discussion took place at a meeting in Asilomar, California, in 1975 [5].A pertinent similarity between these two areas of science is the confluence of several disciplines to create a hybrid technoscience, in which the boundaries between science and technology have become transient [6]. This convergence was vital for the success of both nuclear physics and later synthetic biology, which combines biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technologies and other new fields that have been created along the way [7]. In physics, technoscience received massive support from the government when the military potential of nuclear fission was realized. Although the splitting of the atom took place before the Manhattan Project, the Second World War served as a catalyst to combine research in nuclear physics with organized and goal-directed funding. As most of this funding came from the government, it changed the relationship between politics and research, as scientists were employed to meet specific goals. In the wake of the detonation of the first atomic bombs, the post-war period was another watershed moment for politics, technoscience, industry and society as it generated new and more intimate relationships between science and governments. These included the appointment of a scientific advisor to the President of the USA, the creation of funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation, or research organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and large amounts of federal funding for technoscience research at private and public universities. It also led to the formation of international organizations such as the civilian-controlled International Atomic Energy Agency [6].There is no global war to serve as a catalyst for government spending on synthetic biology. Although the research has benefited tremendously from government agencies and research infrastructure, the funding for Venter''s team largely came from the private sector. In this regard, the relationship between biological techno-science and industry might already be more advanced than with the public sector given the enormous potential of synthetic life for industrial, medical and environmental applications.Research and innovation at universities has always played a vital role in the success of industry-based capitalism [8]; technoscience is now the major determinant of a knowledge-based economy or ''technocapitalism'' [9]. At the heart of technocapitalism are private and public organizations, driven by research and innovation, which are in sharp contrast to industrial capitalism, where the factories were production-driven and research was of less importance [10]. Furthermore, synthetic biology might provide valuable resources to the scientific community and thereby generate new research opportunities and directions for many biological fields [11].However, given the far-reaching implications of creating synthetic life and the risk of abuse, it is probable that the future relationship between synthetic biology and government will include issues of national security. In the light of potential misuse of synthetic biology for bioterrorism, and the safety risks involved in commercial applications, synthetic biology will eventually require some government regulation and oversight. In contrast to nuclear physics, in which the International Atomic Energy Commission was established only after the atomic bomb, the synthetic biology community should hold a new Asilomar meeting to address concerns and formulate guidelines and management protocols, rather than waiting for politicians or commercial enterprises to regulate the field.So far, synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics in terms of handling information. The Manhattan Project inevitably created a need for secrecy as it was created at the height of the Second World War, but the research maintained this shroud of secrecy after the war. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the US government released carefully compiled documents to the American public. The existence of useable nuclear power had been secret until then, and the control of information ensured that the public further supported or tolerated the technology of nuclear fission and the subsequent use of atomic bombs [12]. This initially positive view changed in the ensuing decades with the threat of a global nuclear war.…synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developmentsInformation management in synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics, in that most of the crucial breakthroughs are immediately published in peer-reviewed journals and covered by the media. The value of early public discourse on science issues is evident from the reaction towards genetically modified crops and stem cell research. In this regard, synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developments.The main issues that might threaten to dampen public support for synthetic biology and favourable public perception are ethics and biosecurity concerns. Ethical concerns have already been addressed in several forums between scientists and public interest groups; this early engagement between science and society and their continuing dialogue might help to address the public''s ethical objections. In terms of biosecurity, biology might learn from nuclear physics'' intimate entanglement with politics and the military. Synthetic biologists should maintain control and regulation of their research and avoid the fate of nuclear physicists, who were recruited to fight the Cold War and were not free to pursue their own research. For synthetic biology to stay independent of government, industry and society, it must capitalize on its public engagement and heed the lessons and mistakes of nuclear physics'' atom-splitting moment. It should not just evaluate, discuss and address the risks for human or environmental health or biosafety concerns, but should also evaluate potential risks to synthetic biology research itself that could either come from falling public acceptance or government intrusion.? Open in a separate windowAlex J ValentineOpen in a separate windowAleysia KleinertOpen in a separate windowJerome Verdier     

The GM public debate: context and communication strategies

Science communication is developing a new approach that promotes dialogue between scientists and the public. A recent example is the debate on the possible introduction of genetically modified crops into the United Kingdom. As this exercise in public engagement draws to a close, we consider the context in which this debate has taken place, and the challenges of developing such interactions between science and society.     

On the role of hypotheses in science

Scientific research progresses by the dialectic dialogue between hypothesis building and the experimental testing of these hypotheses. Microbiologists as biologists in general can rely on an increasing set of sophisticated experimental methods for hypothesis testing such that many scientists maintain that progress in biology essentially comes with new experimental tools. While this is certainly true, the importance of hypothesis building in science should not be neglected. Some scientists rely on intuition for hypothesis building. However, there is also a large body of philosophical thinking on hypothesis building whose knowledge may be of use to young scientists. The present essay presents a primer into philosophical thoughts on hypothesis building and illustrates it with two hypotheses that played a major role in the history of science (the parallel axiom and the fifth element hypothesis). It continues with philosophical concepts on hypotheses as a calculus that fits observations (Copernicus), the need for plausibility (Descartes and Gilbert) and for explicatory power imposing a strong selection on theories (Darwin, James and Dewey). Galilei introduced and James and Poincaré later justified the reductionist principle in hypothesis building. Waddington stressed the feed-forward aspect of fruitful hypothesis building, while Poincaré called for a dialogue between experiment and hypothesis and distinguished false, true, fruitful and dangerous hypotheses. Theoretical biology plays a much lesser role than theoretical physics because physical thinking strives for unification principle across the universe while biology is confronted with a breathtaking diversity of life forms and its historical development on a single planet. Knowledge of the philosophical foundations on hypothesis building in science might stimulate more hypothesis-driven experimentation that simple observation-oriented “fishing expeditions” in biological research.     

Synthetic biology - the state of play

Just over two years ago there was an article in Nature entitled "Five Hard Truths for Synthetic Biology". Since then, the field has moved on considerably. A number of economic commentators have shown that synthetic biology very significant industrial potential. This paper addresses key issues in relation to the state of play regarding synthetic biology. It first considers the current background to synthetic biology, whether it is a legitimate field and how it relates to foundational biological sciences. The fact that synthetic biology is a translational field is discussed and placed in the context of the industrial translation process. An important aspect of synthetic biology is platform technology, this topic is also discussed in some detail. Finally, examples of application areas are described.