1/22/2012

Melissa Creary, MPH

Abstract
In the The Synthetic Biology Debate sponsored by The Long Now Foundation, Drew Endy mentioned his favor of the democratization of science. He referred to this biotechnology as having an open-source framework in which all-comers can contribute to the state of science (as long as there is no intent for malice). This idea of open source relies on the collaboration of a community to make biology accessible to everyone. This concept, unfortunately, has not been extended to the general public to engage them in a dialogue about this new technology. Democratization of science and technology implies that the people, as nonexperts, are an integral part of all deliberations on policy, regulation and control of science and technology. It is imperative then, that all publics are engaged from the very beginning in the production of knowledge about synthetic biology. In this way, the public can participate through the contribution their own expertise to a wider set of issues. If synthetic biology is to move beyond the domain of just the intellectual elite, then a shift must occur that includes those who are not considered traditional stakeholders. Using models of community-based participatory research and other educational frameworks, I hope to translate methods that might be useful to the synthetic biology community in engaging with underrepresented groups.

Public Engagement
Fig. 2: Planning & Implementation Criteria for Public Engagement
Preparation

Discussion
Information Selection sources details/viewpoints framing Was the information balanced, accurate, relevant, sufficient, among others? Stakeholder Selection: demographics relevant affected groups Were the stakeholders representative of all affected groups?

Public engagement is a valuable means to provide societal perspectives concerning the policy, legal, ethical, and other impacts of scientific and technological research. Input from the public has been provided via surveys, legislative hearings, public meetings, and notice and comment opportunities. Figure 2 displays several categories of effectiveness criteria that should be used when engaging the public in new technology that encapsulate representation, information exchange, and utility. Figure 3 displays a framework that takes social-cognitive and engagement theories into consideration as well as the different learning environments and contexts that impact diverse educational outcomes via cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement. Scientists, regulators, members of civil society, industry representatives, philosophers, and other relevant groups should be involved in the decision-making process including: women, members of indigenous groups, members of all socioeconomic levels, and racial/cultural/ethnic minority groups

Execution
Process Selection venue/media groups/individuals Facilitation information dissemination activities and tasks specific procedures Were the processes effectively carried out and acceptable to stakeholders?

Outcome
Outcome Selection Trust knowledge gains Satisfaction legitimate policy future participation useful input Were the specific goals of the public engagement achieved? What factors were predictive of the achievements?

In 2010, awareness of synthetic biology was highest among: men (32%), especially men under age 50 (35%), college graduates (37%), and those with household incomes more than $75,000 (40%). Groups who reported low awareness of synthetic biology also showed the greatest movement toward risk, wanting more regulation of the technology. Given that democratization of science is theoretically inclusive, it is important to engage those who may be less exposed to the technology. The models shown here are tools that can be used to engage non-traditional stakeholders in a conversation that will increase their awareness and lessen their perception of risk. Access to new technologies is transformed when marginalized people are able to claim a voice and be seen as epistemological agents able to assess problems for themselves. Different goals for public engagement should translate to different methods of public input, appropriate for science and technology as they evolve as opposed to goals posited for science and technologies that are more mature. Multiple types of participation for comparison purposes should be used and processes evaluated to ensure that the most effective method of public engagement is being utilized.

Fig. 3: Framework for Investigating Public Engagement in Science and Innovation Policy
Features Processes
Individual Cognitive Engagement Procedures individual or group deliberative activities cognitive support for learning or critical thinking Moderators/Context group composition (i.e. males, females) individual differences (i.e. need for cognition, political affiliation) information processing/critical thinking strategies cognitive goals Individual Affective Engagement acceptance, perceived value interest, enjoyment self-efficacy affiliative, achievement goals Group processes social and information exchange polarization, conformity level of argumentation and evaluation
Source: PytlikZillig, L. & Tomkins, A. (2011). Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There? Review of Policy Research. 28(2).

Outcome

Participant Issues individual satisfaction increased knowledge changes in institutional trust future participation Policy-makers quality of policy input (competent, relevant, accurate, diverse, useful) legitimacy of resulting policies

Background
Scientists and policy makers around the globe entice us with the promise of open, transparent, participatory, and collaborative processes toward new technologies. Despite these promises, the science moves forward without the inclusion of non-traditional stakeholders. Below are data and theoretical underpinnings that should be considered when engaging these stakeholders in the fast moving promise of synthetic biology.
Fig. 1: Support for Continued Work vs. Ban in Synthetic Biology Among Key Subgroups (2010)
Move forward All adults Gender: Men Women 72% 55% 25% 40% 63% Ban 33% Income: Under $30K $30K - $50K $50K - $75K Over $75K 50% 57% 71% 80% 47% 38% 25% 16% Move forward Ban

Community Based Participatory Research

References
Haraway, Donna. (1991). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives in Siminars, Cyborgs, and Women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge Press Harding, S. G. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Durham: Duke University Press. Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa. (2009). The 9 Principles of the Community-Based Participatory Research Model. Iowa City, IA . www.icts.uiowa.edu/content/9-principlescommunity-based-participatory-research-model Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2010). Awareness and Impressions of Synthetic Biology: A Report of Findings Based On A National Survey Among Adults. Washington, DC. www.synbioproject.org PytlikZillig, L. & Tomkins, A. (2011). Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There? Review of Policy Research. 28(2). Tuana, N. & Sullivan, S. (2006). Introduction: Feminist Epistemologies of Ignorance. Hypatia. 21(3). Wallerstein N, Oetzel J, Duran B, Tafoya G, Belone L, Rae R. (2008). What predicts outcomes in CBPR? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. Community Based Participatory Research for Health: Process to Outcomes. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Education: High school or less Some college or tech ed College grad Race: Whites African Americans Hispanics 68% 41% 53% 29% 52% 43% 51% 61% 74% 45% 34% 22% Religion: Attend religious services weekly Evangelicals 56% 51% 39% 43%

Source: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2010). Awareness and Impressions of Synthetic Biology: A Report of Findings Based On A National Survey Among Adults. Washington, DC. <www.synbioproject.org>

Source: Wallerstein N, Oetzel J, Duran B, Tafoya G, Belone L, Rae R. What predicts outcomes in CBPR? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. Community Based Participatory Research for Health: Process to Outcomes. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008:371392.

Epistemic Privilege: Less privileged social positions are likely to generate perspectives that are less partial and less distorted than perspectives generated by other social positions. Sociological, historical, and cultural viewpoints of the less privileged should be acknowledged. Epistemology of ignorance: One cannot fully understand the complex practices of knowledge production and the variety of features that account for why something is known, without also understanding the practices that account for not knowing. Situated/Partial Knowledge: Knowledge specific to a particular situation are often embedded in language, culture, or traditions. Most real problems have to be solved by taking advantage of a partial understanding of the problem context and problem data.
POSTER TEMPLATE BY:

Case Study: Role of Biosensors in Receptor Organization for Breast Cancer

Stakeholders: African-American Women Engagement Strategies: Church Town-halls, Sorority Meetings, Hair Salons, Federally Qualified Health Centers, and Community Gatherings Information Sources and Delivery Methods: Peer Education, Social Media, Print Materials, Radio and Television Ads Partnership Development: Organizational, Community-based, and Potential Participants

1. A community is a unit of identity that is reinforced through social interactions and characterized by shared values and norms and mutual influences. 2. Activities should build on community resources and relationships. 3. Programs should establish equal partnerships in all phases of research. 4. Programs should promote co-learning that facilitates reciprocal transfer of knowledge, skills, and capacity. 5. Activities should achieve balance between research and action. 6. Research programs should address locally relevant health problems and consider the multiple determinants of health and disease. 7. Program development should occur through a cyclical and iterative process that includes ongoing assessments of successes and obstacles. 8. Knowledge gained from community research should be actively disseminated to all partners in language that is understandable and respectful. 9. Community-based research involves a longterm commitment.
Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa. (2009). The 9 Principles of the CommunityBased Participatory Research Model. Iowa City, IA . www.icts.uiowa.edu/content/9-principles-community-basedparticipatory-research-model

Acknowledgements
Partial support provided by Deboleena Roy, PhD; National Academies Keck Futures Initiative (NAKFI) Grant "Developing a Benchside Ethics and Community-Based Participatory Research Training Program in Synthetic Biology Partial travel support provided by the BioBricks Foundation SB5.0 Young Researcher Travel Award, through a generous grant from the Sloan Foundation

www.PosterPresentations.com