How is it possible for the design principles for synthetic biology to be based on kinship and reciprocity when the technology is being developed in an economic system based on extraction and colonialism? How can biotechnology be rooted in the stewardship of nature when it is being deployed in service of an economic system that externalizes costs to people and the environment, and runs in service to the one goal of generating short term profits for investors? This is the crux of the problem with biotechnology and the root of the deep public skepticism. Unless we confront these deeper problems about structural flaws and inequities, any conversation like this runs the risk of being a nice-sounding PR exercise for biotech companies.
This is a wonderful piece Christina. We need to start being willing to be wrong and to be vulnerable as scientists. I hope that this conference is not the end of trying to have these conversations, but the start of us approaching them with more humility and willingness to learn.
Very helpful reframing of the goals and barriers in the public discussion around new technologies! Although this talks about GMOs, it could as easily apply to other technologies like nuclear energy too.
Love it. More products should highlight 'Proudly Use Genetic Engineering' on the label with a charming logo. It's funny - but in general I find most people I know that aren't in the sustainability/synbio/biotech/materials space don't have time or any interest in GMO's as a topic - it's just always had bad 'vibes'. On balance if a product said 'I'm GE and I'm Great' - those are good vibes.
How is it possible for the design principles for synthetic biology to be based on kinship and reciprocity when the technology is being developed in an economic system based on extraction and colonialism? How can biotechnology be rooted in the stewardship of nature when it is being deployed in service of an economic system that externalizes costs to people and the environment, and runs in service to the one goal of generating short term profits for investors? This is the crux of the problem with biotechnology and the root of the deep public skepticism. Unless we confront these deeper problems about structural flaws and inequities, any conversation like this runs the risk of being a nice-sounding PR exercise for biotech companies.
That was exactly the kind of questions the group was asking!
This is a wonderful piece Christina. We need to start being willing to be wrong and to be vulnerable as scientists. I hope that this conference is not the end of trying to have these conversations, but the start of us approaching them with more humility and willingness to learn.
Very helpful reframing of the goals and barriers in the public discussion around new technologies! Although this talks about GMOs, it could as easily apply to other technologies like nuclear energy too.
Love it. More products should highlight 'Proudly Use Genetic Engineering' on the label with a charming logo. It's funny - but in general I find most people I know that aren't in the sustainability/synbio/biotech/materials space don't have time or any interest in GMO's as a topic - it's just always had bad 'vibes'. On balance if a product said 'I'm GE and I'm Great' - those are good vibes.
What a great piece thank you!