Is Public Engagement in Bioengineering and Synthetic Biology Improving Research Outcomes?

Engaging publics and communities in large-scale biology applications

Globally, research cultures and communities engaged with advanced technology fields, including bioengineering and synthetic biology, have declared a collective aspiration and commitment to act responsibly as they develop innovations that seek to change biological and socio-ecological systems (Gray et al, 2018; NASEM, 2016). The development of gene drives to suppress invasive and pest species and improvements to the sustainability of food systems are examples of integrative biology applications in engineering with the potential for large-scale research impact. Agreement on the best ways to achieve this goal has reinvigorated scholarship in the social sciences and humanities as they relate to bioengineering.

Contemporary research areas influential in responsible science practice now include responsible innovation (Gregorowius and Deplazes-Zemp, 2016; Pansera et al, 2020), interdisciplinary integration (Carter and Mankad, 2021), transdisciplinarity and co-design (Ledingham and Hartley, 2021), institutional reflexivity (Smith et al, 2021), public participation in science (Barnhill-Dilling and Delborne, 2021; Weingart et al, 2021), convergence research (Heichel et al, 2007), and bioethics (e.g., Thompson, 2018). Looking back further in history, philosophers have long questioned disciplinary divisions artificially separating facts from values when making sense of complex challenges (Frodeman, 2020).

Among the current directions for research at the interface between advanced bioengineering and the social sciences, is understanding how bioengineering can include diverse values in the planning and funding of technological innovations (Jones, 2014). Public engagement in this sense refers to the inclusion of diverse public perspectives and values, particularly during early research stages. Such public engagement exercises broaden the discourses in science beyond a technological realm, and are often conducted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of innovations, as well as institutional responses to the information collected. Meeting the second condition is important especially for science organizations that develop and then set out to deploy such innovations. Without sufficient consideration of public values, the aspiration to act responsibly (and reflexively) would not be achieved (Gray et al, 2018).

The history and goals of meaningful engagement in the bioengineering and synthetic biology research communities have multiple origins. This is partly driven by a pragmatic need to improve the societal and environmental impacts of genetic research more broadly, and partly by the realization that changes to biological (and ecological) systems may require moral endorsement in democratic societies (Macnaghten, et al, 2016; Stirling et al, 2018). For our purpose, public engagement refers to research-driven efforts to incorporate diverse perspectives into science planning. This articulation aligns with how public engagement is defined across the international synthetic and engineering biology communities more broadly (e.g., Gray et al, 2018; NASEM, 2016).

The Engagement Gap

The imperative that publics participate in science is in stark contrast to the historical treatment of publics as somewhat distant homogenous entities whose concerns need “to be surveyed (or more accurately surveilled) and [..] overcome, rather than respected and responded to” (Marris, 2015, p. 95). Similarly abandoned in contemporary engagement research and practice is the view that publics require improvements to their science literacy to accept the merits of novel technologies (Srinivas, 2017). To view public engagement as simply a transactional public relations exercise has historically led to erosion of public and consumer trust (Hogan, 2016).

In response to these shifts in understanding public participation in science, Australia and many other countries have invested heavily in creating research partnerships that tackle the broad and complex issues that potentially disruptive innovations present.

Examples of successful initiatives that strive to extend science dialogue beyond technology development include industry-academia collaborations supported by the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) foundation and the more dispersed do-it-yourself biology social movement. Both initiatives continue to push for the reorientation of science innovation to explicitly include economic, political, and social considerations in bioengineering. Although progress in bringing broader perspectives and expertise into science planning at the organizational (micro) scale has been made, evidence of broadscale impact of these collaborations is yet to emerge.

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Futures Science Platforms in Advanced Engineering Biology and Responsible Innovation, and the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology are examples of research investments established to examine broader governance aspects of synthetic and engineering biology alongside its technical challenges. The quality of public values research underway at these centers is presently high. It is what happens with the findings of this research that remains ambiguous and needs further critical reflection.

A current challenge for applied science organizations is the general disconnect between the production of research outputs that report on public attitudes, for example, and any observable change to science planning that demonstrates an organizational response to the social research conducted. Related to this challenge is the absence, in most science institutions, of concrete mechanisms to enable social science research findings to be incorporated into science decision-making at an influential level. That is, how can broader values, once identified, tangibly affect science decisions? Recent research has identified scientists themselves identify a gap between science-led approaches to public engagement and any real change to research direction and science policy (de Graeff et al, 2021; Lacey et al, 2020). We refer to this limitation as the Engagement Gap (Fig. 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 1.

The Engagement Gap illustrates the gap between public engagement research findings, their translation, and their ultimate uptake.

The Engagement Gap represents the loss of continuity between the generation of social science findings (e.g., research with publics) and its translation into research outcomes that ultimately lead to research impact. Figure 1 illustrates the Engagement Gap. An ideal research generation scenario might be the rollout of a series of well-designed and executed projects, replete with socio-technical considerations, leading to a number of immediate outputs and outcomes. These outcomes might include enhanced science partnerships or improved understanding of public values. Coupled with the publication of research findings in highly regarded scientific journals, the combination of outputs and outcomes at this stage might be considered good science practice. However, without the uptake of those findings into science and policy decision-making, achieving research impact on a broader scale is difficult.

The path to research impact, in this case the incorporation of public knowledge and values into science and policy decision-making, is a dynamic and multidimensional process (NASEM, 2016). It requires the integration of multiple disciplinary approaches, the inclusion of diverse perspectives and values, and concerted effort to incorporate findings into future science planning. Much has been written in relation to the first and second elements.

It is now the final element, incorporation of research findings, which deserves scholarly attention among advanced bioengineering and synthetic biology research cultures and communities. Identifying the mechanisms, processes, and enabling conditions that potentially facilitate research impact is the next big challenge in achieving the goal of responsible science. This stage (and goal) might be referred to as good research governance, where both formal organizational structures alongside cultural change supports the shaping of future science direction (Wolfe, 2015). It is at this stage where research outcomes from well-designed projects have the potential to shape both science decision-making and policy decision-making.

Enabling institutional change

Several obstacles continue to thwart institutional capacity for the integration of public engagement research to inform future technology and science development. First, the structure of research projects and programs in applied research institutions is still largely domain- or discipline-specific. True integration of multiple and distinct disciplines is challenging. Although examples of programmatic attempts at interdisciplinarity are becoming more visible, sufficient investment is needed for them to be successful (Carter and Mankad, 2021).

Second, the synthetic biology research community, for example, has largely been influenced by a risk management approach to public engagement attributable in part to historical public disapproval of genetic engineering stemming back to the early 2000s. In response, public engagement initiatives are increasingly planned and implemented; yet their quality, resourcing, and independence remain uneven especially when designed with an intention to persuade or bring about acceptance (Smith et al, 2021). Third, synthetic and engineering biology research can be formative and uncertainty about the value of public engagement during basic concept development has at times influenced institutional momentum to invest in social research early (Smith et al, 2021).

Finally, for science organizations that are simultaneously investing in the development of innovative technologies alongside supporting enquiry into their ethical dimensions and broader public acceptability, it remains a challenge to balance both visions without attracting skepticism about true intentions. This is despite emerging literature to suggest science organizations that do not invest in exploring the societal implications of their own work are remiss in practicing responsible science (Barnhill-Dilling and Delborne, 2021; Pansera et al, 2020).

For science organizations that seek to add value to their public engagement efforts, several secondary steps could be valuable to consider. A research translation process where the findings from public values research is synthesized before being distilled to capture potentially actionable recommendations is one avenue. This process is not dissimilar to the practice of research translation and learning in the public health sector where research impact is critical to health outcomes. Cancer Australia, a federal government body, is one example of an institution that empowers members of the public known as consumer advocates to assist in the development, assessment, and reporting of publicly funded research. In this case, consumer advocates play an intermediary role in the process of research translation.

In other institutional settings, for any empirical research undertaken, other actors could play the role of translation. In such settings, key recommendations and lessons might be presented to organizational leaders and teams responsible for interrogating suitable organizational avenues for incorporating any new information. A necessary step involves the formal embedding of any change to policy or strategy within organizational planning processes. This could take place in the form of advisory groups to translate, identify, and facilitate the inclusion of new information at different levels of practice and decision-making. It is the formalization of suitable mechanisms that have the function of translation, communication, and facilitation, which is key to integrating the diversity of views necessary for achieving responsible science and research governance.

Not all public engagement research will yield information that signals a clear pathway to any shift in science planning. There are instances where public research simply calls for further research or where findings do not present definitive guidance toward any particular science direction. However, the current lack of research translation occurring in bioengineering and synthetic biology research cultures and communities globally presents an opportunity to trial various mechanisms that work toward the goal of including societal values in innovation development. This effort is particularly vital for publicly funded science institutions that aim to invest in public good research.

Conclusion

Potentially challenging questions are emerging for the bioengineering and synthetic biology communities in their quest for responsible science development:

As a science community, what do we seek from public engagement efforts? If we are opening science up to co-shaping by publics, where is the entry point for integration of publics' views? How might a research translation process be operationalised?

If investment in public engagement is purely transactional, over time, publics' trust in the value of participation in science will likely erode. For applied science organizations wishing to remain true to the fundamental intention of public engagement in synthetic biology, planning for how to utilize and act upon the information that emerges must be assumed. Without this accountability, the bioengineering and synthetic biology communities' promise of responsible science practice is compromised.