Social license and synthetic biology: the trouble with mining terms

Jason A. Delborne*, Adam E. Kokotovich, Jeantine E. Lunshof

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    21 Citations (Scopus)
    75 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    In the wake of controversies over first-generation biotechnologies, the growing field of synthetic biology appears cognizant of the need to attend to the social, political, cultural, and ethical dimensions of innovation. Public engagement has emerged as an important means for attending to these dimensions. Here, we call attention to the problematic nature of one paradigm being drawn upon to conceptualize this public engagement for synthetic biology: social license to operate (SLO). After reviewing SLO's emergence in the resource extraction context and the existing critiques of SLO, we examine its current use in the synthetic biology literature. We argue that an SLO-derived model of engagement is especially inadequate for synthetic biology due to unique challenges posed by synthetic biology and the limited conception of engagement provided by SLO. We conclude by discussing alternative public engagement paradigms and examples better suited to inform synthetic biology governance.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)280-297
    Number of pages18
    JournalJournal of Responsible Innovation
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 3-Apr-2020

    Keywords

    • Community and stakeholder engagement
    • public engagement
    • responsible research and innovation
    • social license to operate
    • synthetic biology
    • RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH
    • INNOVATION
    • COMMUNITY
    • OPERATE

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Social license and synthetic biology: the trouble with mining terms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this