Governance strategies for living technologies: bridging the gap between stimulating and regulating technoscience

Area of Science:

• Life sciences
• NBIC convergence (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information, and cognitive technology)
• Bioengineering

Background:

• The convergence of NBIC technologies intensifies the interaction between biological and physical sciences.
• The "bio-debate" is now primarily driven by NBIC convergence, not solely biotechnology.
• NBIC convergence fuels two key bioengineering trends: "biology becoming technology" and "technology becoming biology."

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze current political models for promoting innovation and regulating risks in living technologies.
• To reflect on appropriate governance strategies for emerging living technologies.
• To advocate for anticipatory regulation in the life sciences.

Main Methods:

• Description of four existing political models for innovation promotion and risk regulation.
• Case study analysis of (psycho)physiological computing and synthetic biology.
• Reflection on governance strategies based on these case studies.

Main Results:

• Living technologies represent a politically and ethically sensitive area requiring both promotion and regulation.
• Current governance discussions often overlook the necessity of anticipatory regulation.
• Specific living technologies, like psycho-physiological computing and synthetic biology, pose significant challenges to existing regulatory frameworks.

Conclusions:

• A proactive biopolitical approach, emphasizing anticipatory regulation, is essential for societal guidance of life sciences development.
• Governments must balance innovation promotion with robust risk management for living technologies.
• Anticipatory regulation is key to navigating the societal implications of rapidly advancing life science technologies.