28
| December 2010 | Realising European potential in synthetic biology
EASAC
However, debate on governance issues must be well
integrated with discussion on potential benefi ts and
clarifi cation of the policy issues for supporting R&D.
This communication model should be adopted by
other Directorates-General relating to other industrial
applications. At the same time, the European
Parliament should also consider how it could help to
promote stakeholder education and engagement.
• Initiatives in scenario modelling (led by DG Enterprise
and Industry with DG Research and sector-specifi c
Directorates-General, including those with
responsibilities for Energy, Environment and Security)
to develop a range of forecasts for future economic
impact of the applications of synthetic biology
to inform public debate and help underpin well-
prepared product regulatory procedures.
• As the fi eld progresses, the European Commission
should support continuing discussion on what is
distinctive about synthetic biology and whether new
issues are raised thereby for the regulation of the
scientifi c procedures or applications.
• In the longer term, the European Commission
should also contribute to economic studies of cost-
effectiveness of the emerging synthetic biology
innovations in the respective industry sectors, and to
the use of economic outcome data to inform public
debate and market development.
These recommendations are challenging because the
fi eld of synthetic biology is still in its formative stages
and overlaps with other emerging technologies.
Furthermore, the science is progressing rapidly. It is
relevant for the European institutions to consider
the implications of synthetic biology in their current
strategy development for related innovation areas,
for example in biotechnology and nanotechnology.
Furthermore, in the view of EASAC, synthetic biology
will become important for the EU strategy for 2020
35
.
This strategy has highlighted key drivers that include
‘smart growth’ (developing an economy based on
knowledge and innovation) and ‘sustainable growth’
(promoting a more resource effi cient, greener
and more competitive economy). In both these
respects and in the efforts to engage with society,
developments in synthetic biology are of great
importance for the EU.
At the end of this project, EASAC confi rms its view
that the academies, collectively, have an important role
to identify developing trends while also emphasising
what is still uncertain in synthetic biology. The timetable
for societal impact is very diffi cult to forecast: a
contribution by metabolic engineering can realistically
be expected within the short term but some of the
other methodologies reviewed in this report can only be
anticipated to deliver in the longer term. Nonetheless, it
is important to prepare for these longer-term advances
and to manage expectations about their impact. And, to
reiterate the point made at the beginning of this report,
whatever the uncertainties about particular applications,
we are certain that synthetic biology will also be of critical
importance in contributing to the better understanding of
natural biological systems.
35
European Commission “Europe 2020: a European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm.
EASAC
Realising European potential in synthetic biology | December 2010 | 29
Appendix 1 Academy sources and Working Group composition
A fi rst draft of this report was compiled from information discussed and published by individual academies as follows:
• The Royal Society: (1) ‘Synthetic Biology Scientifi c Discussion Meeting Summary’, August 2008 (Royal Society
2008a); (2) ‘Report on the third joint Royal Society-Science Council of Japan workshop on new and emerging
technologies’, September 2008 and (3) ‘Opportunities and challenges in the emerging fi eld of synthetic biology’,
symposium July 2009, co-organised with the US National Academies and the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, together with the Health Council of the Netherlands and the
Advisory Council on Health Research, report ‘Synthetic biology: creating opportunities’, September 2008.
• The Swiss Academy of Sciences Forum on Genetic Research, ‘Fact sheet on synthetic biology’, January 2006.
• The German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, together with the German Academy of Science and Engineering and
the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf, DFG), workshop on Synthetic Biology, Berlin,
February 2009 and Statement, November 2009.
The member academies of EASAC appointed experts to the EASAC Synthetic Biology Working Group in January 2010.
The Working Group met in March 2010, with further discussion occurring by email. The Working Group report was
completed in May 2010 and was independently reviewed by additional experts nominated by EASAC.
Members of the Working Group
Volker ter Meulen (Chairman), German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and EASAC
Bärbel Friedrich, Institute of Biology, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
Adam Kraszewski, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Ulf Landegren, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Sweden
Peter Leadlay, Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Gennaro Marino, Department of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Naples, Italy
Vaclav Paces, Institute of Molecular Genetics, Prague, Czech Republic
Bert Poolman, Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute and Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials,
University of Groningen, the Netherlands
György Pósfai, Director, Institute of Biochemistry, Biological Research Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Szeged, Hungary
Rudolf Thauer, Max Planck Institute for Microbiology, Marburg, Germany
George Thireos, Director of Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Greece
Jean Weissenbach, Director, Genoscope, France
Robin Fears (Secretariat), EASAC, United Kingdom