Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revolution versus evolution?: Understanding scientific and technological diffusion in synthetic biology and their implications for biosecurity policies

  • Forum Article
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Synthetic biology enthusiasts often tout the emerging field for its present and future potential to revolutionize the life sciences. In the biosecurity arena, which has received considerable government and non-government attention, many are concerned that synthetic biology may prove to be an easier and cheaper way to conduct bioterrorism. To evaluate these claims, this article will focus on contrasting two different frameworks that have been used for understanding the development, diffusion and adoption of synthetic biology. In contrasting these frameworks, I will draw on examples from biotechnology and information technology because they are often used as analogies in synthetic biology discussions. I conclude that the critical elements for successful development, transfer, and use of synthetic biology methodologies and tools for harm are not purely material or technical, but involve important social dimensions that underpin technical work, requiring time, teams of experts, appropriate political, legal, and funding structures, and the development of new (still unknown) techno-organizational processes. To date, there have been few studies that have explored these socio-technical mechanisms of synthetic biology diffusion through in-depth examination at a micro and macro level. However, by having a more nuanced understanding of various synthetic biology approaches and how they are (or are not) able to travel easily to new settings, one can create a more refined spectrum of factors shaping threats from state and non-state actors related to synthetic biology. This article ends by outlining new research agendas important to support and pursue in order to improve biosecurity policymaking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For this definition of synthetic biology, see: http://syntheticbiology.org

  2. See, “NSF funds ASU, Caltech workshop on synthetic biology,” https://asunews.asu.edu/20140828-synbio-workshop-award.

  3. Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nerlich have also noted that synthetic biologists focus on science as a revolutionary process (Hellsten and Nerlich, 2011). Synthetic biologists have also referred to the field has unleashing a third ‘industrial revolution.’ See Royal Society of Chemistry (2009). For the purposes of this article, I will focus on discussing the biotech and information technology revolutions analogies because they are pervasive in many synthetic biology accounts by practitioners, analysts and policymakers.

  4. The promotion of this vision of synthetic biology is inculcated early in synthetic biology practitioners. Caitlin Cockerton finds that high school and undergraduate students involved in the International Genetically Engineered Machine competitions are inculcated with promissory visions of synthetic biology as part of their pedagogy (Cockerton, 2011, pp. 223–255).

  5. For example, in the late 1990s, early leaders in synthetic biology such as Tom Knight (trained under Marvin Minsky, one of the pioneers of artificial intelligence), Gerald Sussman and Ron Weiss had worked in the area of amorphous computing that bridged the fields of artificial life, computer science and biocomputing; these connections were later brought to synthetic biology. Also, one of the first homes of synthetic biology was at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT where Knight worked. See O’Malley et al (2008); Campos (2009); Suarez et al (2009); Calvert (2010); Evers et al (2011).

  6. See http://www.biobricks.org/.

  7. A special focus on biohacking was introduced at the 2009 CodeCon hacker conference, see http://www.codecon.org/2009/program.html.

  8. For example, see, The Royal Academy of Engineering (2009, p. 23). In this report, the enablers are all technical: computational modeling, DNA sequencing and DNA synthesis. There is not any discussion of what non-technical factors could also enable the diffusion and development of synthetic biology.

  9. HeLa cell-free cytoplasmic extract is derived from HeLa cells, which are a type of human cancer cell. The extracts contains the cytoplasm, cellular proteins and organelles (for example, ribosomes), and chemicals such as ATP, GTP; however, the nuclei, mitochondria and some other cellular organelles have been removed.

  10. Roberta Kwok also outlines the challenges in synthetic biology work: (1) many of the parts are undefined; (2) circuit function is unpredictable; (3) complex circuits are difficult to work with; (4) many synthetic constructs are incompatible; (5) variability in growth conditions/environment surrounding constructs can lead to changes in function. See Kwok (2010).

  11. In addition to Cortada’s book, for a nice historical overview of this problem, see Hughes (1993); Edgerton (2011).

  12. For a description of this project, see http://www.synbioproject.org/library/inventories/map/.

  13. There are various claims that have been made by synthetic biology practitioners, as well as others in the media and in government and non-government sectors that synthetic biology, with its goal of creating standardizable, interchangeable biological parts, is eliminating the need for tacit knowledge in biological work. For examples of these claims, see Mukunda et al (2009); Oye (2012). These claims, however, are typically anecdotal and are not based on rigorous empirical research and analysis.

  14. Also, Zhang et al note that synthetic biology is, “subject to different political regimes that are interwoven with each country’s historically developed R&D system and scientific traditions.” See Zhang et al (2011, p. 11).

  15. Zhang et al also call for more detailed study and analysis of transnational activities in synthetic biology. See Zhang et al (2011, p. 13).

  16. Caitlin Cockerton’s PhD thesis, however, provides a nice model for how an in-depth ethnographic study of knowledge production in specific synthetic biology projects could be conducted. Cockerton’s thesis also begins to explore differences in how IGEM teams are organized and managed affect technical work (Cockerton, 2011, pp. 139–222).

  17. In addition, see Sara Tocchetti’s work on how Maker fairs are contributing infrastructures to the DIYbio community (Tocchetti, 2012). In light of Mitch Altman’s work, it would also be interesting to explore to what extent the US military (or broader national security architecture) is providing support to the DIYbio community. See Altman (2012).

  18. For templates that could inform this kind of analysis, see Cockerton (2011); Balmer and Bulpin (2013); Meyer (2013).

  19. Christina Smolke has discussed how these technological developments in synthetic biology represent a significant investment of time and money, see OECD and UK Royal Society (2010, p. 15). The OECD and UK Royal Society report also calls for the need for the development of better research and educational infrastructures and intellectual property. See OECD and UK Royal Society (2010, p. 22).

  20. I have greatly benefitted from financial support from the Ploughshares Fund and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for my biosecurity research. However, in recent years, both foundations have chosen to not support biosecurity research in order to focus their institutional priorities on nuclear security issues.

References

  • Altman, M. (2012) Hacking at the crossroad: US military funding of hackerspaces. Journal of Peer Production 2 (June): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annaluru, N. et al (2014) Total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic chromosome. Science 344 (6179): 55–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspray, W. and Ceruzzi, P.E. (eds.) (2008) The Internet and American Business. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, A.S. and Bulpin, K.J. (2013) Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. Biosocieties 8 (3): 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, A.S. and Molyneux-Hodgson, S. (2013) Bacterial cultures: Ontologies of bacteria and engineering expertise at the nexus of synthetic biology and water services. Engineering Studies 5 (1): 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, G., Gilman, N., Starianakis, A. and Rabinow, P. (2009) From synthetic biology to biohacking: Are we prepared? Nature Biotechnology 27 (12): 1109–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, S. (2012) Barriers to bioweapons: Intangible obstacles to proliferation. International Security 36 (4): 80–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15 (1): 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (eds.) (2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Surry, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994) Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay. In: J. Law (ed.) Power, Action, and Belief. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J. (2010) Synthetic biology: Constructing nature? The Sociological Review 58 (1): 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, L. (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra and H. Vriend (eds.) Synthetic Biology The Technoscience and Its Societal Consequences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B. V., pp. 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. (2003) The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. Biodefense Strategy Practice, and Science 1 (3): 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cello, J., Paul, A.V. and Wimmer, E. (2002) Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297 (5583): 1016–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S.H., Lamoreaux, N.R. and Usselman, S.W. (2009) The Challenge of Remaining Innovative: Insights from Twentieth-century American Business. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockerton, C. (2011) Going synthetic: How scientists and engineers imagine and build a new biology. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • Collins, H.M. (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.M. (2001) Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science 31 (1): 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortada, J.W. (2012) The Digital Flood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cortada, J.W. (2013) How new technologies spread: Lessons from computing technologies. Technology and Culture 54 (2): 229–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czar, M.J., Anderson, C., Bader, J.S. and Peccoud, J. (2009) Gene synthesis demystified. Trends in Biotechnology 27 (2): 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfanti, A. (2012) Tweaking genes in your garage: Biohacking between activism and entrepreneurship. In: W. Sützl and T. Hug (eds.) Activist Media and Biopolitics: Critical Media Interventions in the Age of Biopower. Innsbruck, Austria: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lorenzo, V. (2009) Not really new. Lab Times March: 20–24, http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2009/lt03/lt_2009_03_20_25.pdf.

  • Directorate-General for Research, European Commission (2005) Synthetic Biology Applying Engineering to Biology. Report of a NEST High-level Expert Group. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research Information and Communication Unit.

  • Edgerton, D. (2011) The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J. (1986) The Social History of the Machine Gun. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endy, D. (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438 (7067): 449–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endy, D. (2014) Synthetic biology – What should we be vibrating about?: Drew Endy at TEDxStanford, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf5tTe_i7aA.

  • Epstein, S. (1998) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ERASynBio (2014) Next Steps for European Synthetic Biology: A Strategic Vision from ERASynBio ERASynBio, http://www.erasynbio.eu/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_59/erasynbiostrategicvision.pdf.

  • Group, E.T.C. (2007) Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology. Montreal: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005) Synbiology: An analysis of synthetic biology research in Europe and North America. European Commission Framework Programme 6 Reference Contract 15357 (NEST), http://www2.spi.pt/synbiology/documents/SYNBIOLOGY_Literature_And_Statistical_Review.pdf.

  • Evers, J. et al (2011) Synthetic Biology, Briefing Note, no. 1, European Parliament Technology Assessment, pp. 2–3, http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/research/u9800/EPTA_briefingnote_A4.pdf.

  • Finlay, S.C. (2013) Engineering biology? Exploring rhetoric, practice, constraints and collaborations within a synthetic biology research centre. Engineering Studies 5 (1): 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flank, S. (1993) Exploding the black box: The historical sociology of nuclear proliferation. Security Studies 3 (2): 259–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox Keller, E. (2002) The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox Keller, E. (2003) Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Developments with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frow, E. and Calvert, J. (2013) ‘Can simple biological systems be built from standardized interchangeable parts?’ Negotiating biology and engineering in synthetic biology competition. Engineering Studies 5 (1): 42–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fye, S. (2011) An examination of technical difficulties and contingencies among gene synthesis companies. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association 2011 Meeting; September, Washington DC, pp. 1–4.

  • Garfinkel, M.S., Endy, D., Epstein, G.L. and Friedman, R.M. (2007) Synthetic genomics: Options for governance, http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads/pdf/Synthetic%20Genomics%20Options%20for%20Governance.pdf.

  • Garrett, L. (2013) Biology’s brave new world. Foreign Affairs 92 (6): 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoghegan, B.D. (2008) The historiographical conceptualization of information: A critical survey. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 30 (1): 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, D.G. et al (2008) Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science 319 (5867): 1215–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, D.G. et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329 (5987): 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollan, J. (2011) Lab fight raises U.S. security issues. The New York Times 22 October.

  • Grushkin, D. (2013) DIY biotech labs undergo makeovers. Scientific American 10 September.

  • Grushkin, D., Kuiken, T. and Millet, P. (2013) Seven Myths & Realities about Do-it-Yourself Biology. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P. (2003) The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 327–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten, I. and Nerlich, B. (2011) Synthetic biology: Building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genetics and Society 30 (4): 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J. and Maurer, S.M. (2007) The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology 3 (117): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. (2015) Capturing the imaginary: Vanguards, visions, and the synthetic biology revolution. In: S. Hilgartner, C. Miller and R. Hagendijk (eds.) Science & Democracy: Knowledge as Wealth and Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M.M., Kraft, A., Martin, P.A., Nightingale, P. and Mahdi, S. (2006) Is the biotechnology revolution a myth? In: D. Triggle and J. Taylor (eds.) Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M.M., Martin, P.A., Nightingale, P., Kraft, A. and Mahdi, S. (2007) The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical, and organizational change. Research Policy 36 (4): 566–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D.F. (2001) Realism in drug discovery: Could Cassandra be right? Nature Biotechnology 19 (12): 1099–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D.F. (2003) Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2 (2): 151–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T.P. (1987) The evolution of large technological systems. In: W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 51–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T.P. (1993) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880–1930. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, C., Lenzos, F. and Marris, C. (2014) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: Challenging the “myths”. Frontiers in Public Health 2 (115): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppi, R., Bertele, V. and Garattini, S. (2005) Disappointing biotech. British Medical Journal 331 (7521): 895–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, L.E. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, A. (2009) Synthetic Biology and Biosecurity. EMBO Reports. 10(1 S): S23–S27.

  • Kera, D. (2012) Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: Connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols. Journal of Peer Production 2 (June): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. and Pinch, T.J. (1996) Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture 37 (4): 763–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwok, R. (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463 (7279): 288–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1987) Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In: W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, H. (2013) Bioengineers look beyond patents. Nature 499 (7456): 16–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentzos, F. (2013) Synthetic biology, security, and governance. Biosocieties 7 (4): 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. and Spinardi, G. (1995) Tacit knowledge, weapons design, and the uninvention of nuclear weapons. American Journal of Sociology 101 (1): 44–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M.S. (1988) The history of computing in the history of technology. Annals of the History of Computing 10 (2): 113–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M.S. (2011) Histories of Computing. In: T. Haigh (ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeish, C. (2006) Science and censorship in an age of bioweapons threat. Science as Culture 15 (3): 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, L. (2001) Ways of knowing about weapons: The Cold War’s end at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. PhD dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

  • Meyer, M. (2013) Domesticating and democratizing science: A geography of do-it-yourself biology. Journal of Material Culture 18 (2): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misa, T.J. (2007) New directions in the history of computing. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 29 (4): 6–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molyneux-Hodgson, S. and Balmer, A.S. (2014) Synthetic biology, water industry and the performance of an innovation barrier. Science and Public Policy 41 (4): 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molyneux-Hodgson, S. and Meyer, M. (2009) Tales of emergence – Synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 4 (2/3): 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukunda, G., Oye, K. and Mohr, S. (2009) The rough beast: Synthetic biology and the future of biosecurity. Politics and the Life Sciences 28 (2): 2–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, A. (2012) Researchers create rewritable digital storage in DNA. Stanford Medicine 21 May, http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/may/endy.html.

  • National Research Council. (2003) Scientific Openness and National Security Workshop. 9 January, http://csis.org/files/attachments/030109agenda.pdf.

  • Nightingale, P. (2004) Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure, and the un-social construction of predictability: The overlooked fixed costs of useful research. Research Policy 33 (9): 1259–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P. and Martin, P. (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. TRENDS in Biotechnology 22 (11): 564–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D.F. (1984) Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2014) Emerging Policy Issues in Synthetic Biology. OECD Publishing, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/emerging-policy-issues-in-synthetic-biology_9789264208421-en.

  • OECD and UK Royal Society (2010) Symposium on Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: Synthesis Report. OECD and Royal Society, http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294974787.pdf.

  • Oldham, P., Hall, S. and Burton, G. (2012) Synthetic biology: Mapping the scientific landscape. PLOS One 7 (4): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M.A., Powell, A., Davies, J.F. and Calvert, J. (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 30 (1): 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oye, K.A. (2012) Proactive and adaptive governance of emerging risks: The case of DNA synthesis and synthetic biology. International Risk Governance Council, http://www.irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FINAL_Synthetic-Biology-case_K-Oye_2013.pdf.

  • Pauwels, E. (2013) Mind the metaphor. Nature 500 (7464): 523–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickersgill, M. (2011) ‘Promising’ therapies: Neuroscience, clinical practice, and the treatment of psychopathy. Sociology of Health & Illness 33 (3): 448–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. (2006) Science Business: The Promise, The Reality, and The Future of Biotech. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, A. (2006) Custom-made microbes at your service. The New York Times 17 January: F1.

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Washington DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

  • Purnick, P.E.M. and Weiss, R. (2009) The second wave of synthetic biology: From modules to systems. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10 (6): 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. and Bennett, G. (2012) Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reville, J. and Jefferson, C. (2013) Tacit knowledge and the biological weapons regime. Science and Public Policy 41 (5): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic Biology: Scope, Applications, and Implications. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.

  • Royal Society of Chemistry, Science and Technology Department (2009) A third industrial revolution. Integrative Biology 1: 48–149.

  • Schmidt, M. (2008) Diffusion of synthetic biology: A challenge to biosafety. Systemic Synthetic Biology 2 (1–2): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1995) Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 289–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1998) Placing the view from nowhere: Historical and sociological problems in the location of science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23 (1): 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shorett, P., Rabinow, P. and Billings, P.R. (2003) The changing norms of the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 21 (2): 123–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, B. (2007) The uninvention of the nuclear weapons complex? A transactional view of tacit knowledge. Paper presented at Society for Social Studies of Science annual meeting; October 2007, Montreal, Canada, http://www.4sonline.org=ProgramSynopsis060907.pdf.

  • Smith, H.O, Hutchinson, C.A, III, Pfannkoch, C. and Venter, J.C. (2003) Generating a synthetic genome by whole genome assembly: phiX174 bacteriophage from synthetic oligonucleotides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (26): 15440–15445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinardi, G. (1992) Defence technology enterprises: A case study in technology transfer. Science and Public Policy 19 (4): 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, M., Rodrigo, G., Carrera, J. and Jaramillo, A. (2009) Computational design in synthetic biology. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra and H. Vriend (eds.) Synthetic Biology The Technoscience and its Societal Consequences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp. 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (2007) Systemic interactions in life science innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 19 (3): 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (2009) Governing synthetic biology: Processes and outcomes. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganglui-Mitra and H. Vriend (eds.) Synthetic Biology The Technoscience and Its Societal Consequences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp. 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J., Chataway, J., Wield, D., Bruce, A., Hanlin, R. and Mugwagwa, J. (2007) Appropriate Governance of the Life Sciences – 2: The Case for Smart Regulation. Innogen Policy Brief, http://www.innogen.ac.uk/downloads/AGLS-02-The-Case-for-Smart-Regulation.pdf.

  • Tocchetti, S. (2012) DIYbiologists as ‘makers’ of personal biologies: How MAKE magazine and maker faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology. Journal of Peer Production 2 (June): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J.B. and Zilinskas, R.A. (2006) The promise and perils of synthetic biology. The New Atlantic 12: 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J.B. (2011) Could terrorists exploit synthetic biology? The New Atlantic 31: 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutton, R. (2011) Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science 41 (3): 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Synthetic Biology Roadmap Coordination Group (2012) A Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK. Swindon, UK: Technology Strategy Board.

  • U.S. Congress (2002) Expressing serious concern regarding the publication of instructions on how to create a synthetic human polio virus, and for other purposes. 107th Congress, 2d session, H.R. 514, 26 July 2002, http://Thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.RES.514.

  • Van Est, R., de Vriend, H. and Walhout, B. (2007) Constructing life: The world of synthetic biology. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut, http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads/pdf/BAP_Synthetic_biology_nov2007[1].pdf.

  • Van Lente, H. and Rip, A. (1998) The rise of membrane technology. Social Studies of Science 28 (2): 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, K.M. (2008) Framing biosecurity: An alternative to the biotech revolution model? Science and Public Policy 35 (1): 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, K.M. (2013) Phantom Menace or Looming Danger?: A New Framework for Assessing Bioweapons Threats. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voosen, P. (2013) Synthetic biology comes down. The Chronicle of Higher Education 4 March, http://chronicle.com/article/Synthetic-Biology-Comes-Down/137587/.

  • The White House (2012) National Bioeconomy Blueprint. Washington, DC: The White House.

  • Zhang, J.Y., Marris, C. and Rose, N. (2011) The Transnational Governance of Synthetic Biology: Scientific Uncertainty, Cross-borderness, and the ‘Art’ of Governance. London: BIOS, London School of Economics and Political Science. BIOS working paper no: 4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the organizers of SB 6.0 (and, in particular Jane Calvert and Emma Frow) for stimulating her thinking on an earlier version of this article. In addition, the author appreciates the feedback from Rachel Prentice, Maria Fernandez, Dhurba Ghosh, Wendy Wolford, Marina Welker and Sara Pritchard on an early paper draft. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments to strengthen the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and Science, Technology and Society Program, North Carolina State University, Room 107E, 1911 Building, Campus Box 7107, Raleigh, 27695-7107, North Carolina, USA

    Kathleen M Vogel

Authors
  1. Kathleen M Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This manuscript is comprised on original material that is not under review elsewhere and that the studies on which the research is based has been subject to appropriate ethical review. I have no competing interests in the research detailed in the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vogel, K. Revolution versus evolution?: Understanding scientific and technological diffusion in synthetic biology and their implications for biosecurity policies. BioSocieties 9, 365–392 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.31

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.31

Keywords

Search

Navigation