There is widespread concern that biological machines may evolve, proliferate, and produce unexpected interactions which might alter the ecosystem.

The notion of 'bacteria' generally, and particularly the strains our team plans to use, have strong medical associations and are believed by many to be hazardous to health. E coli is widely understood to cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, whilst pseudomonas is best known for causing infections including pneumonia and swimmer's ear.

People have concerns that these will have unpredictable effects on ecosystems and that once taken these actions are difficult if not impossible to reverse. For example, synthetic organisms may outcompete their ‘natural’ counterparts and permanently damage biodiversity.

Based on vague knowledge that bacteria used in research are generally given characteristics of antibiotic resistance and that these can spread between organisms.

The public are fearful of the ability of synthetic biology to produce known/modified/new organisms designed to be harmful to humans (as demonstrated, for example, by the synthesis of viruses such as the polio virus and the pandemic Spanish Flu virus and nurtured by Hollywood dramas such as 'Outbreak').

Some of the group expressed fears about scientists 'playing God', explaining their philosophical and religious concerns about the process of creation and the nature of 'living' beings. There was significant confusion as to how exactly 'life' should be defined, where it begins and ends, and what the requisite level of complexity is. Some people vaguely expressed fears that synthetic biology will 'blur' the line between the 'artificial and natural worlds', although did not elaborate on what was meant by this nor why this would be such a negative development.

There is some concern that patenting could lead to creation of commercial monopolies and inhibit research. [e.g. BRCA 1 Gene monopoly causing increase in price of testing which could potentially save lives).

Some of the group expressed worries about the fact that much of the development of synthetic biology and resulting intellectual property is likely to take place in and by extension principally benefit rich, developed nations. Particular examples of this concern which were raised included the possibility of farmers in poor countries becoming dependent on modified crop seeds controlled by large corporations which could extract whatever price they wished for the product, and the possibility of cheap alternatives for manufacture of chemicals such as antimalarial medicine (artemisinin) ensuring that local prodiction of natural equivalent products would no longer be sustained. Generally, this fear is expressed as a concern that technologies which are socially accepted on the premise that they will improve quality of life in less developed countries (golden rice and GM mosquitoes being cited as examples of such projects) may in actual fact benefit only rich Western companies and have no or even a detrimental impact on the lives of those the project was intended to help.

There is great concern that the development of fast-growing fields such as synthetic biology is 'overtaking' the regulation which is in place to regulate its application and to balance the risks and potential benefits. The possibility of biological warfare programmes is a major worry. A further concern is that 'garbage biology' (DIY home synthetic biology) may become a more popular, widespread hobby in the future - and that increased accessibility of synthetic biology to the lay public would make it difficult to enforce current regulations in synthetic biology.

All members of the group agreed that scientists should. Some members also expressed scepticism as to the claims of synthetic biology, and suspected that the potential benefits of the technology had been 'overhyped' in many areas, creating unrealistic hopes. It is important CONTINUE HERE

It was agreed that it is crucially important for scientists to recognise the importance of securing and maintaining public support and legitimacy. For this reason, scientific development must seek to earn public trust by not advancing too far ahead of public attitudes, and ensuring that potential applications of new technology offer clearly explained social benefits.

Many of the group felt that there remains a deficit of accessible, reliable, and impartial information. Independent sources of information are particularly significant: some members also expressed scepticism as to the claims of synthetic biology, and suspected that the potential benefits of the technology had been 'overhyped' in many areas, creating unrealistic hopes. Similarly, it was recognised that information concerning the risks of synthetic biology frequently comes from biased sources which may have a motive to overstate the dangers and seek to create excessive public anxiety.

There is great concern that the development of fast-growing fields such as synthetic biology is 'overtaking' the regulation which is in place to regulate its application and to balance the risks and potential benefits. Such concerns should in future be addressed by communicating with the public in terms of how the research and use of each synthetic biology project is restricted and controlled by existing regulations. We used the feedback from these focus groups to shape the direction of our survey questions.
We hoped that comparison of the results from the group with the benefit of this information would help us to establish which concerns are legitimate and which are alleviated by greater understanding and communication. With this group, the focus of discussion shifted from the potential problems with biotechnology, to ways in which these could be addressed. With both groups, there appeared to be a very wide range in the level of understanding of synthetic biology. This is supported by the results of our survey, which also suggest a correlation between age and level of understanding (with younger generations tending to have increased knowledge). Further, it appears that many of the views of those in the focus group were based on media accounts of developments in the field - again, this is consistent with the feedback from our survey. Public concerns regarding synthetic biology arise from a combination of lack of understanding and legitimate worries.