I'm Andy. I'm lecturer in sociology at the University of Manchester, and my research is about science and technology. How facts get made, but also how science and technology get used in the social world. And how they change the social world. I've been studying synthetic biology for seven or eight years now. And I've been charting how it emerged as a new discipline and how it's changed over that time. So, a good example of responsible research and innovation in practice comes from the area of synthetic biology. Every year, there's an international competition called the iGEM competition, which involves undergraduate teams from around the world. Working hard over summer to create novel bacteria that can do new things. In 2006, the Edinburgh iGEM team created a new bacterium and in 2009 the Cambridge iGEM team created a new bacterium. And together, those individual developments created an arsenic biosensor. Arsenic's an important thing to consider in terms of science in the service of RRI, so doing something good for society. Because it affects around 100 million people, particularly in developing or impoverished countries in South Asia, including places like Nepal or Bangladesh and India. Knowing that the eventual use of the biosensor would be in these kinds of countries. The iGEM teams and the scientists that have been supervising them early on began to interact with social scientists who were experts in responsible research and innovation. And that opened up a whole series of questions about how the biosensor would be used in practice. And whether there were things that they could do to design the biosensor to be a better fit for the culture and for the economy in which they were going to be using it. What they did in order to put RRI into practice was, they went on field work trips into Nepal, so that they could get a better understanding of the cultural situation, so that they could understand how the economy was set up there, and what people were already doing to try and improve people's understandings of arsenic and drinking water, and the health problems that it can cause. This only came about through the interactions that they'd had with social scientists and the range of stakeholders that they'd met in the UK, but over time, meant that they'd built a number of different connections with non-governmental organizations. But also community workers in the region where they were intending to use the technology. This, overall, meant that they had a better appreciation of what the technology would be used for. And where it would be used, and how it would be used, and also the problem that they were trying to overcome. The impact of implementing an RRI project in this way on the scientific work that they were doing and on their own research practices was quite important to the project overall. And it's a project that's still ongoing. So they're still trying to understand how to make use of the biosensor. But what they found was that there were existing ways of measuring arsenic in drinking water in Nepal. But people weren't using those techniques very well. Part of the reason was that they are quite expensive techniques for most people so they can't really afford them. But also they involve multiple different steps, so it's difficult to use them. So by being on the ground, and working with community groups, NGOs, and social scientists, they realized that they needed to make a product in a different way than they had been intending to do so. So they changed their design so that it would be simpler, and so that it would be much cheaper. So they actually changed what they were doing, and the product that they were going to make, and how they would make it. So that it would better fit the social situation into which they were going to be introducing their product. This is a really good example of RRI, in that it shows that a better understanding of society, and a better understanding of how economics works, and engagement with social scientists and community groups can improve the science that's being done. One of the big lessons that we can draw from that example that would be relevant to other synthetic biology projects, particularly those where they have an international dimension, is that current regulations around synthetic biology and genetic modification of microorganisms are largely concentrated in Europe or in North America. But they don't often apply in more developing countries. So there are some ways in which that might seem like a good thing. So that it would be easier to implement these technologies in countries like Nepal without having to jump through the hoops of regulation as it were. But the scientists in this context do a really good job of acting responsibly. And they're seeking approval in the EU before they try and use this technology in another country. That's a good example of how thinking responsibly about the kinds of ethics and politics and legal issues that are involved in innovation with synthetic biology can improve the overall outcome for everybody. Another thing that we can learn from that project for synthetic biology more generally and for industrial biotechnology is that public engagement exercises are not just about telling the public about things. It's not just about informing people, or trying to overcome public ignorance. It's much more about a two-way dialogue, so that it's communication, trying to understand how they're lives work. Trying to understand how society is organized, in order to change the science that you do. So that it isn't just about a one-way system, but a two-way system; science should change if it's going to be responsible, as well.