"That was not the discussion we wanted to have": Engagement of civil society organizations with synthetic biology.

Responsible Research and Innovation calls for comprehensive public and stakeholder involvement. Its specific requirements, however, have raised criticism concerning the limitation of engagement opportunities for actors like Civil Society Organizations that do not share mainstream perspectives on technological innovations. Our article investigates the engagement of critical Civil Society Organizations in public debates and dialogues on synthetic biology and asks how they contribute to opening up respective debates. Based on three case studies, we show how Civil Society Organizations engage in and frame the debate on synthetic biology in different organizational formats. We find that Civil Society Organizations have explicitly challenged visions of a sustainable future by airing concerns about its risks and adverse impacts and engage in ontological debates about synthetic biology. Yet, we argue that different engagement formats are needed to ensure a diverse public debate on synthetic biology.

Let's (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues.

Synthetic biology is an emerging technoscience, which, so far, lacks a broader public debate. To foster early societal dialogue, a range of public engagement events have been initiated over the past decade. This article discusses the configurations of the emerging debate on synthetic biology in the context of the EU FP7 project SYNENERGENE. Drawing on notions of frames and framing in media studies and policy analysis, we ask which distinct frames are invoked and become dominant in current discussions about synthetic biology. Our analysis indicates significant reconfigurations in the framing of synthetic biology compared with previous biotechnology debates. Frames that traditionally served to problematize biotechnology, that is, ethics, risks, and economics, become less dominant. Instead, the potential to contribute to social progress is placed in the foreground. Moreover, discussions on ethics, risks, and governance frequently occur on an abstract level, invoking generic statements that could be made for any new technology.

Precaution, Responsible Innovation and Beyond - In Search of a Sustainable Agricultural Biotechnology Policy.

The recent ruling by the European Court of Justice on gene edited plants highlighted regulatory inadequacy as well as a decades-old political problem, namely how to reconcile diverging expectations regarding agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Over time, regulators had tried out various tools to address concerns and overcome implementation obstacles. While initially focussing on risk (with the Precautionary Principle), they later tried to better embed technology in society (e.g., through Responsible Research and Innovation). The PP got criticized early-on; meanwhile, it seems to have lost much of its salience. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is associated with problems of participation and political impact, often rendering it a public awareness tool only. We discuss problems with both approaches and conclude that also RRI falls short of facilitating technology implementation in the way regulators might have had in mind. Rather than leaving political decisions to technical risk assessment or ethics and public awareness, we argue for re-establishing a broad yet sober process of opinion formation and informed decision-making in agricultural policy.

Different ways of problematising biotechnology--and what it means for technology governance.

To understand controversies over technologies better, we propose the concept of 'problematisation'. Drawing on Foucault's idea of problematisation and on the concept of frames in media research, we identify characteristic forms of problematising biotechnology in pertaining controversies, typically emphasising ethical, risk or economic aspects. They provide a common basis for disputes and allow participants to argue effectively. The different forms are important for how controversies are negotiated, which experts get involved, what role public engagement plays and how political decisions are legitimized--in short, for technology governance. We develop a heuristic for analysing the link between forms of problematisation and different options for technology governance. Applied to synthetic biology, we discuss different problematisations of this technology and the implications for governance.