17.05.2015 Views

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!