14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
performance standards.<br />
The successful functioning of designed biological systems is<br />
already confirming the growing extent of our understanding.<br />
The concept of a design–build–test cycle reflects the <strong>evidence</strong>based<br />
nature of the synthetic biology process. Improving<br />
design capability reduces the number of iterations of the<br />
cycle required to achieve a specific performance target, and<br />
may therefore improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness<br />
of identifying potential solutions. Even when public or private<br />
sector incentives are specifically applied to address a given<br />
challenge, the benefits may not be realized unless sufficient<br />
cost-effectiveness is achieved to underpin sustainable<br />
commercial production. Improving the design and synthesis<br />
processes not only facilitates the automation of novel system<br />
development — it may also permit practitioners to focus<br />
less attention on the mechanics of construction, and place<br />
more attention on the robustness of the resulting system’s<br />
performance.<br />
Regulatory challenges<br />
Synthetic biology has the capacity to deliver solutions where<br />
conventional methods are ineffective, too expensive or simply<br />
do not exist. In the near- to mid-term, such solutions are<br />
expected to fall within the range of established channels to<br />
market, each subject to its particular operational constraints<br />
and prevailing regulatory standards. These standards are<br />
regularly reviewed, and the considered expert view is that<br />
such applications remain adequately addressed by current<br />
regulations.<br />
Nevertheless, because synthetic biology represents a leading<br />
edge of current understanding, it is reasonable to anticipate<br />
that further <strong>innovation</strong>s will emerge over time that could<br />
present regulatory challenges. To ensure that society benefits<br />
from synthetic biology in a timely and affordable manner,<br />
key stakeholders must continue to identify and address any<br />
potentially new <strong>risk</strong>s that could be associated with such future<br />
<strong>innovation</strong>s.<br />
Every conceivable application will have its own particular<br />
benefit/<strong>risk</strong> profile. To manage <strong>risk</strong>, it is important to maintain<br />
a broad perspective across the whole opportunity space.<br />
This requires balancing the assessed <strong>risk</strong>s of an <strong>innovation</strong><br />
against the loss of opportunity associated with failing to move<br />
forwards. Attempting to reduce potential <strong>risk</strong> by blocking<br />
a particular activity may inadvertently block access to even<br />
greater future benefits in related areas. In these respects, the<br />
principles of <strong>risk</strong> management relating to synthetic biology are<br />
no different from those that apply to other cutting-edge areas<br />
of <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
Taking a long-term view of the future provides a structured<br />
opportunity to anticipate <strong>risk</strong>s and associated issues, and also<br />
gives more time to reflect upon and address them. The UK<br />
Synthetic Biology Roadmap 2 has paid considerable attention<br />
to mapping out a multi-decade vision of the future, raising<br />
awareness of the underlying directions, values and envisaged<br />
timelines. In addition to the ongoing process of review by<br />
regulatory bodies, numerous other checks and balances have<br />
been put in place. The Synthetic Biology Public Dialogue 4 , for<br />
example, provided an opportunity to engage a wide range<br />
of stakeholders outside the scientific community, identifying<br />
concerns and viewpoints that have helped to shape current<br />
responses. As potential applications emerge, wider societal<br />
conversations may be required. Such conversations should<br />
not only be about potential <strong>risk</strong>s but also about desirable<br />
trajectories and priorities, set against alternative solutions to<br />
given challenges. These conversations need to take place well<br />
before specific regulatory consultations.<br />
From bench to marketplace<br />
From the perspective of industrialists and investors, the<br />
presence of effective (but not excessively bureaucratic)<br />
mechanisms for <strong>managing</strong> <strong>risk</strong> in the marketplace — ranging<br />
from clear regulatory frameworks to best practice guidelines<br />
and standards — can be highly welcome, because they<br />
provide a reliable basis for overall <strong>risk</strong> assessment and<br />
strategic investment decisions. Industrial interest covers a<br />
broad spectrum of organizational structures, ranging from<br />
specialist start-ups to broad-based multi-nationals. For the<br />
larger established companies, successful product lines and<br />
services, and satisfied customers, provide the benchmark.<br />
Commercial choices will be based not only on confidence in<br />
technical delivery, strategic fit and reputational impact, but<br />
also on current and anticipated marketplace needs and values.<br />
Synthetic biology is increasingly forming the core of specialist<br />
start-ups, which may help deliver toolkit advances or address<br />
very specific challenges. At present, the United States has well<br />
over 100 such companies, with the United Kingdom hosting<br />
almost 50. Such a broad-based community of practitioners<br />
helps to ensure that a wide spectrum of practical experience is<br />
becoming available to inform ongoing discussions.<br />
The potential of synthetic biology also attracts many<br />
students, and the field is benefitting from their enthusiastic<br />
engagement, innovative capacity and critical judgment. A prime<br />
example of this is the International Genetically Engineered<br />
Machine (iGEM) competition 5 . Over the past decade, many<br />
hundreds of student iGEM teams from the world’s top<br />
universities have taken part in this annual competition,<br />
discovering how synthetic biology can generate a wide range<br />
of potentially beneficial applications. In many cases, iGEM<br />
projects have led to more detailed professional research<br />
projects, and even to the formation of start-up companies.<br />
Examples of such projects include a cost-effective arsenic<br />
sensor to verify the safety of drinking water, and a system<br />
that can address a challenging health issue such as gluten<br />
intolerance.<br />
Synthetic biology is inherently multi-disciplinary, stimulating<br />
constructive challenges and the sharing of best practice. This<br />
reinforces a culture of ‘responsible research and <strong>innovation</strong>’ 2 ,<br />
which helps practitioners to consider the potential implications<br />
and impacts of their work beyond its immediate focus.<br />
Proactive approaches such as these must be encouraged,<br />
because effective <strong>risk</strong> management is key to instilling<br />
confidence both in potential investors, and in society as a<br />
whole. After all, it is society that stands to benefit not only<br />
from the products and services delivered by synthetic biology,<br />
but also from the jobs and economic growth arising from<br />
successful commercial operations.<br />
45