» Articles » PMID: 25484910

Negotiating the Dynamics of Uncomfortable Knowledge: The Case of Dual Use and Synthetic Biology

Overview
Journal Biosocieties
Specialty Biology
Date 2014 Dec 9
PMID 25484910
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Institutions need to ignore some knowledge in order to function. This is "uncomfortable knowledge" because it undermines the ability of those institutions to pursue their goals (Rayner, 2012). We identify three bodies of knowledge that are relevant to understandings of the dual use threat posed by synthetic biology but are excluded from related policy discussions. We demonstrate how these "unknown knowns" constitute uncomfortable knowledge because they disrupt the simplified worldview that underpins contemporary discourse on the potential misuse of synthetic biology by malign actors. We describe how these inconvenient truths have been systematically ignored and argue that this is because they are perceived as a threat by organisations involved in the promotion of synthetic biology as well as by those involved in managing biosecurity risks. This has led to a situation where concerns about the biosecurity threat posed by synthetic biology are not only exaggerated, but are, more importantly, . This, in turn, means that related policies are and unlikely to have much impact. We focus on the of discussions about synthetic biology and dual use to demonstrate how the same "knowns" that are denied or dismissed as "unknown knowns" in certain circumstances are sometimes mobilised as "known knowns" by the same category of actors in a different context, when this serves to sustain the goals of the individuals and institutions involved. Based on our own experience, we argue that negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge is a difficult, but necessary, component of meaningful transdisciplinary collaborations.

Citing Articles

Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern.

Yoshizawa G, Shinomiya N, Kawamoto S, Kawahara N, Kiga D, Hanaki K Pathog Glob Health. 2023; 118(4):285-294.

PMID: 37791645 PMC: 11234915. DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2023.2265626.


Governing biotechnology to provide safety and security and address ethical, legal, and social implications.

Trump B, Cummings C, Klasa K, Galaitsi S, Linkov I Front Genet. 2023; 13:1052371.

PMID: 36712887 PMC: 9873990. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1052371.


Interdisciplinary collaboration in action: tracking the signal, tracing the noise.

Callard F, Fitzgerald D, Woods A Palgrave Commun. 2016; 1:15019.

PMID: 27516896 PMC: 4978461. DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2015.19.

References
1.
Flower R . The outsider: the rogue scientist as terrorist. J Med Ethics. 2013; 40(4):282-3. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-101175. View

2.
Check Hayden E . Bioengineers debate use of military money. Nature. 2011; 479(7374):458. DOI: 10.1038/479458a. View

3.
Garfinkel M, Endy D, Epstein G, Friedman R . Synthetic genomics | options for governance. Biosecur Bioterror. 2007; 5(4):359-62. DOI: 10.1089/bsp.2007.0923. View

4.
Marris C . Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public?. EMBO Rep. 2001; 2(7):545-8. PMC: 1083956. DOI: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. View

5.
Nouri A, Chyba C . Proliferation-resistant biotechnology: an approach to improve biological security. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27(3):234-6. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0309-234. View