Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, & Public Opinion
A Report Of Findings Based On A National Survey Among Adults

While public awareness of synthetic biology remains lower than that of nanotechnology, the proportion of adults who say they have heard at least something about synthetic biology has more than doubled in the past year.

Awareness of nanotechnology has increased slightly in the past year, putting it back at the same level measured in 2006, with the large majority reporting little or no awareness. One in three (31%) adults has heard a lot (9%) or some (22%) about nanotechnology, while nearly seven in 10 (68%) have heard just a little or nothing about it. Nonetheless, the proportion who say they have not heard anything at all about nanotechnology (37%) is at the lowest level measured.

Today, 22% of Americans say they have heard a lot (5%) or some (17%) about synthetic biology. This is more than twice the proportion who said they had heard a lot or some about it in 2008 (9%). The proportion of Americans who say they have heard nothing about synthetic biology has declined 19 points from 67% in 2008 to 48% today.

Among Americans who make an initial assessment of synthetic biology, the plurality think the risks and benefits will be about equal, and the remainder are divided evenly between benefits and risks. When potential risks and benefits of synthetic biology are outlined, however, the greatest shift in public opinion is toward risk.

Initially, nearly equal proportions of Americans think that the benefits of synthetic biology will outweigh the risks (18%) as think the risks will outweigh the benefits (19%), and 32% believe that the tradeoff will be equal. (Thirty-one percent do not express an opinion.)

Informed perceptions of the risk-benefit tradeoff of synthetic biology shift, however. After hearing a statement about potential risks and benefits of synthetic biology, a larger proportion of Americans think the risks will outweigh the benefits (35%) than think the benefits will outweigh the risks (25%). Thirty-four percent (34%) believe that the tradeoff will be an equal one.

Despite concern about the risks of synthetic biology, by 52% to 38% Americans think we should encourage the development of synthetic biofuels rather than discourage it.

Although public opinion about synthetic biology shifts more toward concern about risks than optimism about benefits, when read two statements about the development of synthetic biofuels--one about why we should encourage their development and one about why we should discourage their development--the majority of Americans think this area of science should be encouraged.

Of the possible risks in developing synthetic biofuels tested in the survey, the public is most concerned that this form of research could be used to create harmful things such as biological weapons and that it is morally wrong to create artificial life. A second-tier concern is that it could damage the environment.
The public has a strong appetite for more information about synthetic biology⎯an area of science that generates both excitement and concern.

The public’s divided attitudes regarding synthetic biology are illustrated by the finding that, just as 47% of Americans say they are “excited by the promise of this research,” 55% agree that “this research worries” them.

There is broad consensus, however, that “more should be done to inform the American public” about synthetic biology research. Fully nine in 10 adults agree with this statement, including 73% who strongly agree.

The public desires more than just information, however. While federal government agencies that might oversee synthetic biology receive approval ratings lower than they were at the beginning of the decade, two-thirds of Americans agree that the federal government should regulate this research.

The American public remains familiar with three federal agencies tested in previous surveys—the FDA, EPA, and USDA—that have the potential to play critical roles in the oversight and regulation of nanotechnology and synthetic biology. More than four in five Americans say they know what each of these entities does. Job approval ratings for the FDA, USDA, and EPA have held steady since 2007, as have the public’s confidence in these organization’s ability to maximize benefits and minimize risks of the products and industries they regulate.

Familiarity with the U.S. Department of Energy, a major funder of synthetic biology research, is slightly lower than that of the other agencies tested, with three-fourths of the public professing awareness of what it does. DOE also earns slightly lower job approval ratings and confidence levels than do the FDA, EPA, and USDA.

The public is divided in its confidence in businesses’ ability to manage the risk associated with new advances in science and technology and remains more confident in federal government agencies’ ability to play an oversight role and manage the risk.

Despite these lukewarm approval ratings, two-thirds of Americans agree that the federal government should regulate this research, including 44% who strongly agree. Only 11% of the public strongly disagrees.