Understanding of Synthetic Biology in the UK government

Communicating science through the government

In the UK, the current number of Member of Parliaments (MPs) with a scientific background is 1, out of 650 working MPs. This is quite an alarming fact and brings up the question where do Politicians get there scientific knowledge from in order to make big decisions? It has already been shown through our workshops investigating into communication and information flow how easy it is to miscommunicate information people do not understand.

We wanted to look into how MPs obtain their scientific information before they address the public, and if they think there is a problem within the government around this issue. We have sent a questionnaire to our local MP and to MPs with a scientific interest. We have so far not collated any data but are still trying. The questions below are the questions we asked the MPs.

1) Do you believe that Synthetic Biology is important?
 
2) Synthetic Biology has been seen to have the potential to rival the discovery of the computer.  Would you agree?
 
3) What do you think the public's view is on synthetic biology is, do you think they would be accepting of synthetic biology products?
 
4) Do you think that by increasing public knowledge in the area it will increase the public's acceptance for Synthetic Biology?
 
5) Have you ever given a talk that includes scientific facts or analogy? Where did you get your information form?
 
6) Can you think of any examples in parliament where misinformation about science has led to impact on society or the general public?

Synthetic Biology Road Map

The UK government have joined together with Industry and academia to create a synthetic biology road map which can be seen below in Figure 1.0. The UK aims to conduct world's leading researches in Synthetic Biology, and they have designed this map to indicate aims of where it would like the sector to be in the future. The government have the belief that Synthetic Biology will help tackle major areas such as; healthcare, energy and the environment.

The map shows that the UK aims to have the industry self-sustainable and at peak of its research by 2030. One of the key objectives the government need to address if Synthetic Biology is to become a major sector in the UK is educating the public around Synthetic Biology so that it is accepted into society. Looking at the road map, public acceptance is one of the lattermost aims coming after; large scale up in industry, healthcare and medicines and benefiting crop quality. Is it right that synthetic biology is imposed in the public's lives before they are aware of it?

To address the problem, the government needs to find a way of informing the public about synthetic biology and how it can help make a difference in people's lives. Whether this information comes through media, education or government, it needs to be communicated in a way people can understand and with true facts and statistics.

Back to Top

Scientific policies and practices set out by the government affect the work of all scientists, including those working in synthetic biology. As part of our human practices we discussed the role members of parliament (MPs) have in the creation and passing of scientific policies, how scientists can engage with MPs to be involved with the creation and passing of scientific policies, and also at why many scientists do not do this.

Scientific policies and practices are vitally important to ensure that research and scientific advancement is carried out in a legal, controlled and ethical way, but they do not just affect scientists. These also influence societal development, both locally and globally as they allow or prevent the creation and discovery of new technologies that could change the way we live our lives.

We discussed with a number of professional scientists whether or not they engage with MPs on scientific issues, and if they did not asked them for their reasoning for this. We will discuss the reasons given below:

- No barriers – some scientists stated that they did not believe there are any barriers to them contacting an MP, but they had just never felt the need to.

- Lack of time – many scientists stated that they did not have the time to spend contacting an MP and becoming involved in the political side of science. They felt that by engaging with parliament they would be taking on an extra workload.

- More effective ways to advance science – a number of scientists stated they felt that there time was better spent publishing their work in journals and at conferences instead. This is as they felt this helped to make sure the most up to date research is available on a topic for those who are creating scientific policies.

- Don't know an MP/no access to MPs – many scientists did not know any MPs who had an interest in scientific policies or a background in science and felt that this prevented them from engaging with anybody on issues that affected them.
Even if I contact them it will not have any effect – a number of scientists stated that they believed that even if they contacted an MP about a scientific issue the MP would be unable to have any effect on the policy in question.

- Media – many scientists stated that they felt the media had a bigger effect on the creation and passing of scientific policies than they would if they engaged with parliament. They therefore felt that it is not worth their time.

- Scientific evidence and knowledge needs to come from a number of scientists – some scientists felt that to have any effect, a large number of scientists need to submit evidence to MPs, and that just contacting an MP by themselves would have no effect.

- Workplace interaction – a number of scientists stated they felt there needed to be engagement with MPs in the workplace, where any evidence or knowledge given comes from a number of scientists.

- Knowledge of problem – many scientists felt that without a good understanding of current policies and practices they are not able to engage with parliament on scientific issues.

- No interest – some scientists stated they were simply not interested in engaging with members of parliament on scientific issues.

Back to Top