Carter L, Mankad A, Hobman E V, Porter N B
CSIRO Land and Water, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.
CSIRO Land and Water, Wembley, WA, Australia.
Transgenic Res. 2021 Apr;30(2):155-167. doi: 10.1007/s11248-021-00233-2. Epub 2021 Jan 27.
Public engagement in science with diverse cross-sections of the community is considered a critical aspect of responsible biotechnological innovation. While the research community shows willingness to engage with both ambivalent and supportive audiences about potentially disruptive technological advances, there is less enthusiasm for engaging with groups who hold deeply opposing views to such advances. 'Playing God' and 'tampering with nature' are popular examples of intrinsic objections often made in opposition to the development or use of novel genetic technologies. Historically appearing in arguments against the pursuit of genetically modified organisms in agriculture and food industries, intrinsic objections have previously been labelled by the science community as inconsistent, non-scientific, and vague. Now found in a range of innovation contexts, the domain of synthetic biology appears to attract such objections consistently. We present the findings from a large Australian study (N = 4593) which suggests 'playing God' objections and their variants can be multilayered and, at times, accompanied by meaningful information about risk perceptions. We use qualitative analysis of open-ended responses from an online survey to show how these objections are articulated in response to selected synthetic biology applications across environmental and health domains. Our research invites a rethink of how the synthetic biology community perceives, and engages with, people who express intrinsic objections. These people may additionally hold extrinsic concerns that may be potentially addressed, or at least reasonably considered, through dialogue. We offer some concluding remarks for engaging with publics who employ these types of arguments to communicate unease with aspects of technology development and use.
让社会各界不同群体参与科学活动，被视为负责任的生物技术创新的一个关键方面。虽然科研界愿意就潜在的颠覆性技术进展与持矛盾态度和支持态度的受众进行交流，但对于与那些对这类进展持强烈反对观点的群体进行交流，热情则较低。“扮演上帝”和“篡改自然”是反对新型基因技术开发或使用时经常提出的典型内在反对理由。内在反对理由在历史上出现在反对农业和食品行业追求转基因生物的争论中，此前科学界将其标记为前后矛盾、不科学且含糊不清。现在，在一系列创新背景中都能发现，合成生物学领域似乎一直吸引着这类反对意见。我们展示了一项大型澳大利亚研究（N = 4593）的结果，该结果表明“扮演上帝”的反对意见及其变体可能是多层次的，有时还伴随着关于风险认知的有意义信息。我们对在线调查中的开放式回答进行定性分析，以展示这些反对意见是如何针对环境和健康领域的特定合成生物学应用而表达出来的。我们的研究促使人们重新思考合成生物学界如何看待表达内在反对意见的人以及如何与他们互动。这些人可能还存在外在担忧，通过对话有可能解决这些担忧，或者至少能得到合理考虑。我们针对如何与使用这类论据来表达对技术开发和使用某些方面不安的公众进行互动，给出了一些总结性意见。
