The construction of security concerns and non-concerns in synthetic biology

A collection of interviews and media about the ways that security concerns are constructed and 'taken care of' within the synthetic biology community.

The interviews represent a sampling of the types of relationships the primary researcher, Sam Weiss Evans, worked with during the data collection process, including those with whom he interacted on only a few occasions, and those with whom he built a long-standing collaborative engagement relationship. The interviewees agreed to have their names released with the transcripts.

The media are images, videos, reports, journal articles, and other items that have been a part of the conversation in synthetic biology about the construction and governance of its security concerns. These were collected over the length of the project through discussions I had with members of the community who were debating the (de-)merits of a particular article, video, etc.

To build and maintain access to the community, I engaged in two exercises of embedding into different parts of the synthetic biology community. First, I spent four months at the beginning of 2014 at the central administration of the United States' National Science Foundation's funded Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (Synberc) at the University of California, Berkeley. I attended weekly administation meetings, presented at the Synberc retreat, and built a working relationship with the core set of researchers and administrators that made up this national research conglomeration. After that, I spent four months within the Massachusetts Inistute of Technology's Program on Emerging Technology, run by Professor Kenneth Oye. This Program has a very active stream of research focused on governance and security aspects of synthetic biology, and is tightly connected to the bioengineers and the policy world. I attended weekly lab meetings and contributed to the research projects being conducted, while also analyzing the process through which decisions were made about what did and did not deserve attention of the Program.

Data analysis included a cross-referenced array of all sources to draw out similarities in the ways that areas of synthetic biology were constructed as being or not being matters of security concern. <p>It is well established that policy agendas define and construct what counts as a concern (Majone 1989). Yet, what remains outside of professional and policy agendas is equally an issue of importance. 'Strategic surprise', for example, is a recurring hazard for those attending to the security implications of science and technology. Yet, why and how some topics are ignored are questions amenable to social sciences and humanities inquiry.

This project seeks empirically and theoretically to assess what is *not* taking place in relation to the analysis of the implications of science for security. It will study what is not taking place in different case studies related to the potential for life science knowledge and techniques to serve destructive purposes. Through doing so, the project will consider how such cases can inform other studies of emerging areas of concern and how they can inform empirical social research in general.

A number of questions that address themes of ethical blindness, taken for granted assumptions, and the social basis of assessments will be central to this project, including:
* How, for who, between whom, and under what circumstances have some applications of science become rendered non-issues?
* What are the everyday routines, practices, social structures that shape this process?
* How have scientists, diplomats, security analysts, and others fostered attention to or distanced themselves from applications of their work?

In relation to Global Uncertainties Programme's goals, this project asks how a diverse range of expertise can be brought together in a systematic fashion to address practical dilemmas associated with openness and collaboration in science. Consideration will be given to how perceptions of and its implications for defence and security vary across professional communities, regulatory regimes, and national contexts. The specific concern with the hostile application of the life sciences examined through the interdisciplinary programme of inquiry outlined in this application will serve as a springboard for addressing what is left outside professional and policy agendas. The ultimate impact anticipated from this project -- as also demonstrated by the activities set out in the 'Pathways to Impact' section -- is to support efforts to prevent the malign use of life sciences and, thus, ensuring work to improve human security.</p>

本数据集收录了一系列访谈与媒体资料，聚焦合成生物学（synthetic biology）社群中安全关切的构建与“妥善处置”路径。

本次访谈样本涵盖了首席研究员萨姆·韦斯·埃文斯（Sam Weiss Evans）在数据收集阶段建立的各类合作关系，既包含仅进行过有限几次互动的对象，也包括建立了长期协作互动关系的对象。所有受访对象均同意在转录文本中公开其姓名。

本数据集收录的媒体资料包括图像、视频、报告、期刊论文及其他相关素材，均为合成生物学社群内围绕安全关切的构建与治理展开讨论的组成部分。所有素材均在项目周期内，通过与社群成员的讨论收集而来——这些成员曾就特定文章、视频等内容的优缺点展开辩论。

为建立并维持与该社群的联系，研究者先后两次嵌入合成生物学社群的不同分支开展工作。首先，2014年初，研究者在加州大学伯克利分校内、由美国国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation, NSF）资助的合成生物学工程研究中心（Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, Synberc）的中央管理部门驻留四个月。期间参与每周一次的管理会议，在Synberc年度闭门研讨会上进行汇报，并与构成这一全国性研究联合体的核心研究者与管理人员建立了工作关系。此后，研究者在由肯尼思·奥耶（Kenneth Oye）教授主持的麻省理工学院（Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT）新兴技术项目组驻留四个月。该项目组围绕合成生物学的治理与安全维度开展了大量活跃研究，并与生物工程师群体及政策界保持紧密联结。研究者在此期间参与每周一次的实验室会议，为正在推进的研究项目提供协助，同时分析该项目组如何决策某一议题是否值得纳入关注范围。

数据分析环节对所有数据源进行交叉比对，以提炼合成生物学领域被构建为安全关切事项或非安全关切事项的共性路径。

<p>学界已有共识指出，政策议程会界定并构建何为值得关注的议题（Majone, 1989）。然而，被排除在专业议程与政策议程之外的内容，同样具备重要研究价值。例如，“战略意外”始终是关注科技安全影响的研究者所面临的反复出现的隐患。但为何部分议题会被忽视、又是如何被忽视的，这类问题恰恰是社会科学与人文科学可以展开探究的方向。

本项目旨在从实证与理论层面，评估科学安全影响分析中被忽视的环节。项目将围绕生命科学知识与技术被用于破坏性目的的潜在可能，通过多个案例研究，分析哪些相关环节未得到足够关注。通过这一研究路径，项目将探讨此类案例如何为其他新兴关切领域的研究提供借鉴，以及如何为整体的实证社会研究提供参考。

本项目的核心研究问题将围绕伦理盲区、想当然的预设以及评估的社会基础展开，具体包括：
* 科学的某些应用是如何、为了谁、在何种主体间与情境下被消解为非议题的？
* 塑造这一过程的日常惯例、实践活动与社会结构是什么？
* 科学家、外交官、安全分析师及其他群体，是如何推动其工作成果获得关注，或是刻意与其保持距离的？

结合全球不确定性项目（Global Uncertainties Programme）的目标，本项目将探究如何以系统化方式整合多元专业知识，以解决科学开放与协作相关的现实困境。研究还将考察不同专业社群、监管体系与国家语境下，对国防与安全的认知及其影响存在何种差异。本申请中提出的跨学科研究计划，将以生命科学恶意应用这一特定关切为切入点，探索如何填补专业议程与政策议程的空白。本项目的预期最终影响——正如“影响路径”章节中所列活动所展现的那样——将是助力防范生命科学的恶意使用，从而为提升人类安全的相关工作提供保障。</p>