Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Marris, Claire; Jefferson, Catherine; Lentzos, Filippa (2014)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Journal: BioSocieties
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: innovation, synthetic biology, Forum Article, biosecurity, R, Health Policy, dual use, strategic ignorance, Health(social science), H1, strategic ignorance; synthetic biology; dual use; biosecurity; science and technology studies (STS); innovation, science and technology studies (STS)
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, misplaced. This, in turn, means that related policies are misdirected and unlikely to have much impact. We focus on the dynamics 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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Balmer, B. (2006) A secret formula, a rogue patent and public knowledge about nerve gas: Secrecy as a spatialepistemic tool. Social Studies of Science 36(5): 691-722.
    • Balmer, B. (2012) Secrecy and Science: A Historical Sociology of Biological and Chemical Warfare. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
    • Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, S. (2012) Barriers to bioweapons: Intangible obstacles to proliferation. International Security 36(4): 80-114.
    • Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, S. (2014) Barriers to Bioweapons: The Challenges of Expertise and Organization for Weapons Development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    • Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, S. and Vogel, K. (2010) The social context shaping bioweapons (non)proliferation. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 8(1): 9-24.
    • Bernier, A. and Rose, P. (2014) DIY bioterrorism part II: The proliferation of bioterrorism through synthetic biology, http://www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-the-proliferation-of-bioterrorism-throughsynthetic-biology, accessed 14 July 2014.
    • Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.B. and Marris, C. (2008) Disentrenching experiment: The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem. Science Technology & Human Values 33(2): 201-229.
    • BWC (2012) Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Geneva: United Nations Office at Geneva.
    • Campos, L. (2013) Outsiders and in-laws: Drew Endy and the case of synthetic biology. In: O. Harman and M. R. Dietrich (eds.) Outsider Scientists: Routes to Innovation in Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, pp. 331-348.
    • Carlson, R. (2003) The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 1(3): 1-12.
    • Check Hayden, E. (2011) Bioengineers debate use of military money. Nature 479(7374): 458.
    • Church, G.M. (2004) A synthetic biohazard non-proliferation proposal, http://arep.med.harvard.edu/SBP/ Church_Biohazard04c.htm, accessed 14 July 2014.
    • Collins, H. (2007) Bicycling on the moon: Collective tacit knowledge and somatic-limit tacit knowledge. Organization Studies 28(2): 257-262.
    • Collins, H. (2010) Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    • Dando, M. (2011) Awareness of and education about the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC): Why this is needed by all life scientists and how that might be achieved. Monograph for the Wellcome Trust Project on 'Building a Sustainable Capacity in Dual-use Bioethics'. University of Bradford, http://www.brad. ac.uk/bioethics/monographs/, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Dando, M. (2012) Introduction. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 28(1): 1-4.
    • Danzig, R. et al (2011) Aum Shinrikyo: Insights into How Terrorists Develop Biological and Chemical Weapons. Washington DC: Centre for a New American Security, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/ publications/CNAS_AumShinrikyo_SecondEdition_English.pdf, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • DARPA (2014) Broad Agency Announcement, Biological Robustness in Complex Settings (BRICS) DARPABAA-14-49, 12 August 2014. Washington DC: DARPA, https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=6d908604ef50 bbbac3e9a6a7001193df, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • DHHS (2014) United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. Washington DC: National Institutes of Health, http://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/United_ States_Government_Policy_for_Oversight_of_DURC_FINAL_version_032812_1.pdf, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Edwards, B. and Kelle, A. (2012) A life scientist, an engineer and a social scientist walk into a lab: Challenges of dual-use engagement and education in synthetic biology. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 28(1): 5-18.
    • Endy, D. (2003) Synthetic biology study. Final report, http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/38455, accessed 14 July 2014.
    • Endy, D. (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438(7067): 449-453.
    • Espona, M.J. and Dando, M. (2011) Dual-use bioethics for the life sciences: The development of a country specific short-course template and a trial application to Argentina. Monograph for the Wellcome Trust Project on 'Building a Sustainable Capacity in Dual-use Bioethics'. Bradford: University of Bradford, http:// www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/monographs/, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • European Group on Ethics (2009) Opinion No. 25 - Ethics of Synthetic Biology. Brussels, Belgium: European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/ european-group-ethics/docs/opinion25_en.pdf, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Fitzgerald, D., Littlefield, M.M., Knudsen, K.J., Tonks, J. and Dietz, M.J. (2014) Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: A transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter. Social Studies of Science, advance online publication 14 May, doi: 10.1177/0306312714531473.
    • Flower, R.J. (2014) The outsider: The rogue scientist as terrorist. Journal of Medical Ethics 40(4): 282-283.
    • Garfinkel, M.S., Endy, D., Epstein, G.L. and Friedman, R.M. (2007) Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance. Rockville, MD: J. Craig Venter Institute.
    • Grushkin, D., Kuilen, T. and Millet, P. (2013) Seven Myths and Realities about Do-It-Yourself Biology. Washington DC: Wilson Centre.
    • Hilgartner, S. (2012) Selective flows of knowledge in technoscientific interaction: Information control in genome research. British Journal for the History of Science 45: 267-280.
    • Implementation Support Unit (2011) New scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention: Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. (BWC/CONF.VII/INF.3). Geneva: United Nations Office at Geneva.
    • Implementation Support Unit (2014) Advances in science and technology related to the Convention. Meeting of Experts, Geneva, 4-8 August: The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. (BWC/CONF.VII/ INF.3). Geneva: United Nations Office at Geneva.
    • Jackson, A. (2013) Engineering Biology. Presentation by Alicia Jackson (Program Manager, DARPA Microsystems Technology Office) at the 1st meeting of the National Academy of Sciences Forum on Synthetic Biology, 20-21 October 2013 in Washington DC, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/stl/SynBio_Forum/ index.htm, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Jefferson, C., Lentzos, F. and Marris, C. (2014a) Synthetic biology and biosecurity: Challenging the 'myths'. Frontiers in Public Health. 2: 115, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00115.
    • Jefferson, C., Lentzos, F. and Marris, C. (2014b) Synthetic Biology and Biosecurity: How Scared Should We Be? London: King's College London, http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/sshm/research/Research-Labs/ CSynBI-Publications.aspx, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Kaplan, D.E. (2000) Chapter 12. Aum Shinrikyo (1995). In: J.B. Tucker (ed.) Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 207-220.
    • Leitenberg, M. (1999) Aum Shinrikyo's efforts to produce biological weapons: A case study in the serial propagation of misinformation. Terrorism and Political Violence 11(4): 149-158.
    • Lentzos, F. (2008) Countering misuse of life sciences through regulatory multiplicity. Science and Public Policy 35(1): 55-64.
    • Lentzos, F. (2014) The performativity of constructed uncertainty: Military money and secrecy in biology. Science as Culture 23(4): 585-589.
    • Littlefield, M.M., Fitzgerald, D., Knudsen, K., Tonks, J. and Dietz, M.J. (2014) Contextualizing neurocollaborations: Reflections on a transdisciplinary fMRI lie detection experiment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 149, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00149.
    • Marris, C. (2001) Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports 2(7): 545-548.
    • Maurer, S.M. (2012) Taking Self-Governance Seriously: Synthetic Biology's Last, Best Chance to Improve Security, Goldman School of Public Policy Working Paper No. GSPP12-003. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2183306, accessed 26th September 2014.
    • McGoey, L. (2012) Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance. Economy and Society 41(1): 1-16.
    • McLeish, C. (2007) Reflecting on the problem of dual use. In: B. Rappert and C. McLeish (eds.) A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences and the Governance of Research. London: Earthscan, pp. 189-207.
    • McLeish, C. and Nightingale, P. (2007) Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy. Research Policy 36(10): 1635-1654.
    • Miller, S. and Selgelid, M. (2007) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13(4): 523-580.
    • Milne, R. (2012) Pharmaceutical prospects: Biopharming and the geography of technological expectations. Social Studies of Science 42(2): 290-306.
    • Mukunda, G., Oye, K.A. and Mohr, S.C. (2009) What rough beast? Synthetic biology, uncertainty, and the future of biosecurity. Politics and the Life Sciences 28(2): 2-26.
    • National Research Council (2004) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington DC: National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=10827#, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (2010) Addressing Biosecurity Concerns Related to Synthetic Biology. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NSABB.
    • Nouri, A. and Chyba, C.F. (2009) Proliferation-resistant biotechnology: An approach to improve biological security. Nature Biotechnology 27(3): 234-236.
    • PCSBI (2010a) New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Washington DC: PCSBI, http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • PCSBI (2010b) Transcripts from Meeting Two: Sept. 13-14, 2010, in Philadelphia, PA. Washington DC: PCSBI, http://bioethics.gov/meeting-two-transcripts, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    • Rappert, B. (2005) Prohibitions, weapons and controversy: Managing the problems of ordering. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 211-240.
    • Rappert, B. (2014) Why hasn't there been more research of concern? Frontiers in Public Health 2: 74, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00074.
    • Rayner, S. (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society 41(1): 107-125.
    • Revill, J. and Jefferson, C. (2014) Tacit knowledge and the biological weapons regime. Science and Public Policy 41(5): 597-610.
    • Ribeiro, R. and Collins, H. (2007) The bread-making machine: Tacit knowledge and two types of action. Organization Studies 28(9): 1417-1433.
    • Royal Academy of Engineering (2009) Synthetic Biology: Scope, Applications and Implications. London: Royal Academy of Engineering, http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/synthetic-biology-report, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Royal Society (2009) New Approaches to Biological Risk Assessment. London: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/7860.pdf, accessed 26 September 2014.
    • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568-1580.
    • Tucker, J.B. and Zilinskas, R.A. (2006) The promise and perils of synthetic biology. The New Atlantis 12(Spring): 25-45.
    • Vogel, K. (2013) Phantom Menace or Looming Danger?: A New Framework for Assessing Bioweapons Threats. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Wheelis, M. and Sugishima, M. (2006) Terrorist use of biological weapons. In: M. Wheelis, L. Rozsa and M. Dando (eds.) Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 284-303.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article