Frames and comparators: How might a debate on synthetic biology evolve?

Area of Science:

• Emerging technologies
• Science communication
• Public engagement

Background:

• Public debate is vital for emerging technologies like synthetic biology (SB).
• Effective debate requires a frame to define relevant arguments and issues.
• Existing frames are often derived from past technology debates.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze how different framing technologies influence public discourse on synthetic biology.
• To understand the long-term impact of comparator technology choices in SB engagement.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of public discourse frames for synthetic biology.
• Examination of frames used in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology debates.
• Assessment of how these frames shape risk-benefit perceptions.

Main Results:

• Biotechnology debates emphasize risks over benefits.
• Nanotechnology discussions highlight benefits, with risks relegated to scientific circles.
• Information technology is perceived as useful, with focus on application consequences.

Conclusions:

• The choice of comparator technology significantly impacts public perception of synthetic biology.
• Future upstream engagement for SB must carefully select framing technologies for effective public discourse.
• Diligent consideration of framing is essential for shaping long-term public understanding of SB.