6533b837fe1ef96bd12a3452

RESEARCH PRODUCT

The rose and the name: the unresolved debate on biotechnological terms

Manuel PorcarMartí DomínguezJuli Peretó

subject

lcsh:Biotechnologymedia_common.quotation_subjectBioengineeringApplied Microbiology and BiotechnologyBiochemistryConstructive03 medical and health sciencesSynthetic biologylcsh:TP248.13-248.65Terminology as TopicPerceptionCorrespondenceScientific consensusNeologism030304 developmental biologymedia_common0303 health sciences030306 microbiologyGenomicsEpistemologyBiological engineeringSynthetic genomicsSynthetic BiologyGenetic EngineeringBiotechnologyDiversity (politics)

description

The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019,EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology, constructive biology, natural engineering, synthetic genomics and biological engineering. This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13522