[MUSIC] So could you talk a little bit, let's see. Is there anything more to say about the section you were asked to write? What else about that chapter? It was very short. But what it did do, is it kind of initiated a funding stream for research, and responsible research to innovation attached to the synthetical that have been funded since. >> Okay. >> So responsible research and innovation has now become part of synthetic biology grants in the UK since the report. But like I say, this wasn't entirely due to the report. This was a term that was already kind of on the up in both the European Commission and one of the research counsels in the UK. >> Mm-hm. But the road map was used to determine funding streams going forward. >> Yes. >> And >> And there was now this component of synthetic biology research funding that was responsible innovation. >> Although, it wasn't defined as a particular percentage of the funding at all. So it's actually very flexible how much money is allocated to the responsible research and innovation component of the grant. So it's different synthetic biology investments have very different amounts of money and effort and time and people invested into this. It's quite similar to the ethical, legal, and social issues element of human genome project programs and other programs since then. And some people have argued RRI has just become a replacement for LC. Mm-hm, right. And do you think that's problematic? >> Well, I think one of our motivations when introducing RRI was to kind of think about the governance of emerging technologies. And how it's often very difficult to predict the risks. >> Mm-hm. >> Because you can't calculate where the risk starts. >> You just don't know. Mm-hm. And so therefore, we. >> The whole RRI literature argues you should think about the motivations and purposes behind the research. And that you should bring in broader groups of stakeholders and other people to kind of discuss the research in an early stage. What I see RRI becoming increasingly now is more of a focus on kind of more downstream issues such as safety and security. >> Which, to be honest, are kind of easier to deal with. Because it's much easier to try and assess whether something that's already been developed is safe. Rather than thinking about what types of ways of imagining the future should influence what is developed in the first place. Mm-hm, yeah. I have found. I mean, I work across a range of technologies. And I have found this struggle in multiple technologies where we start. There is some effort to have engagement, and actually figure out what it is. People might want the technology to be designed and used for. But it is really hard to maintain a focus. >> Yeah. I think it's hard because we don't necessarily have such reliable tools and mechanisms for kind of incorporating diverse visions into technology and development as we do for assessing or measuring risk or safety. Or just doing a kind of survey, public attitude, which is a much easier thing to do. >> Right. As a matter of governance. Do you think that there is a way that that sort of public voice can be involved? I think the most important place for that is actually at the funding stage. >> Mm-hm. >> Of the research. I think lots of scientists and engineers do great public outreach which is different from public engagement of their research. But I think, often, once they've decided to work on a particular project and go down to particular direction, it's very hard to change. So, I think if you're going to influence things, it has to be much more upstream, as we call it, at a much earlier stage. So, having research councils in the UK decide how to, what they're going to fund. And what diversity and different things they're going to fund would be a great place for responsible research and innovation to come in. And also, that take the onus off the individual researchers. Because I don't really want to. This may be a difference from a bioethicist. But I don't really want to have go around to individual researchers, and say, are you being responsible? >> [LAUGH] >> Because I don't know, and I can't really assess that. And they also obviously have good biology practice and safety procedures in the laboratory. But I think at the more political policy level. Then there is really room for an interesting discussion there. >> Mm-hm. Although I would introduce a difference here between bioethics broadly. And responsible conduct of research. Right. >> Which is more of this one. >> Yes. [LAUGH] All right. Do you want to talk a bit about the biosensor? The arsenic biosensor? >> Yes. So the reason I like this is because, even though it's not at the policy level. It's completely at the level of the research project. It's just a really. I think it's a really nice example of responsible research and innovation. So this came out of an project. Don't know if that's been explained yet. But an international genetically [INAUDIBLE] undergraduate competition project in 2006. Where a team from Edinburgh decided that it will be good to detect arsenic in drinking water. Which pollutes a lot of the ground wells in places like Bangladesh and Nepal. Actually, the reason why the ground wells are polluted with the arsenic is because they were dug very deep to avoid contamination with bacteria which was killing lots of people before. So, it's actually that a technological fix has actually caused more problems. And arsenic poisoning takes quite a few years to show itself in symptoms like hands and feet. And horrible cancers and things like that. So they realized that biology was a good way of detecting arsenic. Because it's a quite difficult thing to detect. But some bacteria have a way of detecting it reasonably easily. And the project combined this with another item project from 2010 from the Cambridge UK Igen Team who developed e.coli that could detect colors and produce. Detects something and produce a color that was visible to the naked eye. Because the Edinburgh team's project produced something that was only visible under fluorescent light, I think. But the Cambridge team's project produced a lovely range of different colors which you can see. So what they did is they combined the two. And the idea is that you have a little device which you put some drinking water in. And it will change color. And you'll be able to see quite easily whether the water is contaminated with arsenic or not. But the reason why I think this is a good response for research and innovation project is because they actually went to the users of the device. So they went to Nepal. They got involved with local NGOs who were concerned with drinking water. They talked to their local government about regulations [INAUDIBLE] around genetically modified technologies. They involved a designer to design the actual specific device that the arsenic would be put into. And they got lots of really interesting feedback from the people in Nepal. For example, they felt that they would like just a color change. But the people in Nepal said, this is too vague. We need to have something which is more quantitative. So we need to have a quantitative scale. Also, the device needed to be kept at 37 degrees. Which actually became a bit problematic. And at one point, they were thinking people could just put it in their pockets close to their body. But then lots of people in Nepal don't actually have pockets, because their clothing is different. Yeah. So all these kind of cultural issues became worked into the project. And actually then influenced the design of the device. So they went back to the laboratory in Cambridge. And they redesigned the biosensor to take into account the concerns of the people who actually will be using the device. Mm-hm. At the moment, the project is going through an issue of regulatory uncertainty. Because although the rules over GM technologies may not be too stringent in Nepal. They thought that it was very unfair to release the technology in a country which you wouldn't release in your own country. So, they decided to go through the regulations for the European Union. Yeah. And at the moment, it's kind of stuck in the European Union's regulatory cycle. They actually decided to go for calling for an exemption from. I don't know the technical details of this. But for a particular unused regulatory option. >> Okay. >> Which is maybe why it's taking so much longer. But yeah. So they're hoping that that will go through. There was also questions about whether it deliberate release. Because although it's contained in a device, it could get out of the device. Although they've tried to develop a mechanism which is very physically secure. And so there's kind of ambiguity over that. So they've had lots of conversations with regulators. They've also been discussing with regulators in the US. As well as in the UK and in Europe. And they've had lots of conversations with the users. They've realized that a color form detector which detects E coli. >> Yep. >> Which causes nasty illnesses, was also really valuable for. The people on the ground said they developed a device which does both. So there's just lots and lots of examples of how it wasn't just a technology that was imposed on the developing world. It was actually a technology that was being developed in collaboration and conversation with these people. >> That is indeed a great example. [LAUGH] And have you had any involvement with the group? >> Not directly. I've just been a very enthusiastic observer of what they're doing. But they're actually looking for more funding at the moment. The funding's finished. It was funded by the Welcome Trust. They're looking for more funding to take it forward. And they're all very enthusiastic about taking it forward. But unfortunately, they haven't got funding at the moment. >> Right, yes. All right. Is there anything else you want to talk about? Is there anything else you think it would be helpful for these learners for SC2.0 and EC folks to hear about? >> I suppose I just think that science is a technical enterprise. But it's also a social and political enterprise. And it does change society. >> And I think that it's really enjoyable, as a social scientist, to work with synthetic biology. And hopefully, it is enjoyable for synthetic biologists to work with social scientists, and with bioethicists. So, I really hope that those types of collaboration continue in the future, Because I think, together, we can do good things. >> Mm-hm. Do you want to talk a little bit about SC 2.0, or EC? You've been involved in the project much longer than me. But I was first. I only got involved in it about a year and a half ago, through [INAUDIBLE] lab in Edinburgh. And I think it's a really fascinating project, because of this attempt to completely re-engineer the [INAUDIBLE] genome. And also because it's such a familiar organism to us. Mm-hm. [INAUDIBLE] Domesticated for centuries. Used in wine and beer and in biotechnology, that we have lots of associations and attachments to that organism. So I find that side of the project really interesting too. I find the whole idea of, like, what do we design? If we're doing synthetic biology, what design choices do we make? What kind of yeast should we build? And also, the project is very interesting because of its internationally collaborative nature. So the fact that people are all over the world all working towards a similar project. And then there are other kind of conceptual questions come up about. Will it be a new species, I suppose. What will the changes it make challenge some of our ideas of what is. And, if so. >> Whether it will still be generally regarded as safe. >> Yeah. >> [LAUGH] >> That's another question, as well. So what will come out of this, what will it lead to. Will it lead to a SC 3.0? Will it lead to people deciding to kind of build lots of other new genomes? But I think I like it as a synthetic biology project. Because it also gives lots of understanding of the organism. So it's a way in which you can kind of build in order to learn. So it's a kind of way of using synthetic biology which isn't just about applications. But is about learning through building. >> Right. I mean, it is a very basic science research project. And I think is also interesting in the same way that you find and I find the arsenic sensor project interesting. Even though it's just a project. And we're not talking about governance of the field. Or even an entire section of the field, like medicine or bioremediation. But a particular project. There are interesting questions about how those projects are governed, as well. They, in the arsenic example, detectors example you gave. They made all sorts of really interesting governance choices, right? About how they were going to have the thing regulated. About who was going to be in charge of design, etcetera. >> Yeah, yeah. And I think this project seems to have a very kind of open mentality. In that, not only does it want to make strains that are freely available for people. But also that it's quite open to the involvement of people like me and you, in the project. So the fact that we are quite heavily involved in it. And we can kind of have discussions with people about topics that they might not otherwise think about. I think it shows it has a nice open mentality. >> Mm-hm. And what do you think about, from a sort of public engagement and responsible innovation perspective of the SC. The synthetic yeast project. Or a project like the synthetic yeast project. As opposed to a project like the arsenic biosensor? >> Mm. >> Because that one is very product. >> Yeah. >> Application specific. Whereas the synthetic yeast project is a platform technology project. >> It's much easier to talk about responsible research and innovation when you have users. >> Yeah. >> And when you an application. And I think, with the platform technologies being developed in SC2.0. But in other synthetic biology projects. Many of them. Many synthetic biology projects aim for platform technologies. Yep. But it becomes a different question about what constitutes responsible research and innovation in those contexts. And that's something I'm still working out. But I think it definitely involves talking to lots of different people. [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] >> As a starting point. And thinking. >> The kind of four pillars of responsive research and innovation in some the literature in the UK are anticipate, reflect, engage. And act or respond. So I think those elements could feature into even a platform technology project. So kind of anticipating, thinking about the future. Not necessarily in terms of applications. But maybe if you had a platform technology, you could have lots of different applications. And then engaging, reflecting, and responding to what knowledge you've gained from others. So maybe those principles still apply even to a more basic project. >> Excellent, thank you very much.
