Popularized Synthetic Biology:

Public Perception and Understanding, 2006 to 2016

Kimberly Codding (Biochemistry and Professional Writing)Advisor: Professor Brenton Faber (Writing)

Abstract

What is synthetic biology?

Representational Hybrid Science in Popular Media

Synthetic biology is a continuously emerging field of research and application thatcomprises engineering principles to further biology. This study explores the publicunderstanding and perceptions of the science from 2006 to 2016, as represented bywritten popular media within that time, such as newspapers and magazines, both local andnational. Though the idea of a synthetic biology originates from before the turn of thecentury, the field has emerged significantly in the last ten years. Synthetic biology followssimilar patterns as other emergent sciences and technologies, as it strives to establishitself as a credible field at the forefront of science and society. However, contrary to otherscientific areas such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology seeks to bridge existing areastogether rather than offer itself as a unique and separately understood science. Withapplications ranging from medical care to biofuels, and concerns like bioterrorism andbiosafety hazards, this study reveals the popular perceptions and understandings ofsynthetic biology over the last 10 years, and how this has shaped synthetic biology as anew, hybrid science in society.

Synthetic biology, more affectionately referred to as synbio, is a broad,interdisciplinary, ever-growing field that invokes engineering principles todevise new biological systems for adapting and creating life. The truedefinition still has not reached consensus among the scientific community,and its scope as an emerging science expands as related researchaccomplishes more in the name of synthetic biology.

“Synthetic biology” as a recognizable term originated in 1910 withStephane Leduc, a French scientist who desired his work to be consideredas “synthetic” life forms.1 Following that time, however, both the term andthe idea as a scientific discipline failed to catch on in more establishedscientific communities. The lack of necessary technology to substantiateand progress the field was a critical factor in its delayed significance. Thecontemporary understanding of synthetic biology, then, didn’t come intoprominence until the 1970’s, when a notable geneticist by the name ofWaclaw Szybalski described the “new era of synthetic biology” as one“where not only existing genes are described and analyzed but also newgene arrangements can be constructed and evaluated”.2

This concept became more tangible once the century turned, when the firstsynthetic biological circuit was created in bacteria in the year 2000, with thework published in two separate Nature articles.3,4 The flowchart belowconveys some of the major milestones and key players in the advent ofsynthetic biology following this first success story. 5,6,7,8,9

Conclusions

Acknowledgements & References

This study was conducted as part of a Major Qualifying Project (MQP) under theguidance of Professor Brenton Faber of the Humanities and Arts Department at WorcesterPolytechnic Institute (WPI). I would like to acknowledge his continued support andmentorship of my work and thank him for allowing my use of his previous work onnanoscience as an outline and comparison for this current study. I would also like toexpress my appreciation for my advisors in the Biology department at WPI, ProfessorsNatalie Farny and Mike Buckholt, for their patience and scientific perspective throughoutthe course of this project, as well as my sister project in synthetic biology in the laboratory.

5 Cameron, D. E., Bashor, C. J., & Collins, J. J. (2014). A brief history of synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 12(5), 381-390.3 Elowitz, M. B., & Leibler, S. (2000). A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature, 403(6767), 335-338.Faber, B. (2006). Popularizing nanoscience: the public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(2), 141-169.4 Gardner, T. S., Cantor, C. R., & Collins, J. J. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature, 403(6767), 339-342.6 Mali, P., Yang, L., Esvelt, K.M., Aach, J., Guell, M., DiCarlo, J.E., Norville, J.E., and Church, G.M. (2013). RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 339, 823–826.7 Purnick, P. E., & Weiss, R. (2009). The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology, 10(6), 410-422.8 Specter, Michael. (2009). A Life of Its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us? The New Yorker.2 Szybalski, W., & Skalka, A. (1978). Nobel prizes and restriction enzymes. Gene, 4(3), 181.1 Tirard, S. (2008). Stephane Leduc (1853-1939), from medicine to synthetic biology.9 Zimmer, Carl. (2006). Scientist of the Year: Jay Keasling. Discover.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

AR

TIC

LES

YEAR

APPEARANCES OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY IN WRITTEN MEDIA

High Occurrence Average Occurrence Low Occurrence

Notable Trends:Biofuels/Energy Applications

Genetic Circuitry (Standards & Parts)

Notable Trends:Industry & Funding/Investment

Venter- BiographySynthesizing Artificial Life

CompetitionBioterrorism

Significant Perceptions of Synbio:• Science Fiction/Fantasy is a minor portrayal and appears in later

years (contrary to nanotechnology)• Medical Applications is the largest association (similar to

nanotechnology)• Venter- Biography plays a large role in media (parallel to Drexler for

nanotechnology)• Overall: Synthetic biology bridges fields, instead of separating itself

BacteriaBiofuels/ Energy

ApplicationsBiomaterials Applications

BioterrorismChurch-

Biography

CompetitionEnvironmental/

Agricultural Applications

GMO & Foods

GeneticCircuitry

(Standards & Parts)

Genetic Engineering

GlobalismHigh-

Throughput Methods

Industry & Funding/

Investment

Keasling-Biography

Medical Applications

Morality (Bioethics)

Policy & Regulation (Biosafety)

Revolutionary/ “Cutting-Edge”

Science Fiction/ Fantasy

Software/ Computer

Applications

Synthesizing Artificial Life

Venter-Biography

YeastOther

(Miscellaneous)

Init

ial S

earc

h P

aram

eter

s Jan. 1 2006 to Dec. 31 2015

Keyword: “synthetic biology”

Full text available online

2 national sources and 8 regional sources

563 articles

Fin

al D

ata

Set

Co

llect

ion Removed redundant

and unrelated articles

162 articles

*ranging from a few sentences to 16 pages

Notable Trends:none

The nexus of synthetic biology in biology and engineering - life and machines - isa fascinating blend of two long-well-known sciences. The interplay between thesetwo is the force that stabilizes and propels the emerging area of synbio, and theinterface between lifeless and life-prone areas is perhaps what lends to synbio’ssubstantial current success. Only time will tell how the public continues toperceive and value the emergent discipline. For now, scientists will continue totinker with DNA, repress genes, transplant bacterium genomes, reinvent species,alter foods- many of the old scientific ideas rebranded in a heightened way, underthe new guise of synthetic biology.

YearMajor Representation(s)

with at least 10%

2006Genetic Engineering, Genetic

Circuitry (Standards & Parts), and Industry & Funding/Investment

2007Biofuels/Energy Applications and

Venter- Biography

2008 Bacteria

2009 Synthesizing Artificial Life

2010 Venter- Biography

2011 Bacteria and Competition

2012 Medical Applications

2013 Policy & Regulation (Biosafety)

2014 Medical Applications

2015Medical Applications and

Genetic Engineering