The Role of Public Engagement: Building Trust in Synthetic Biology
Takeaway: Public trust is the ultimate gatekeeper for synthetic biology's success, and it cannot be earned through press releases or marketing campaigns, but only through a genuine, long-term commitment to transparent, two-way public engagement.
Your company can have brilliant science, a robust IP portfolio, a clear regulatory path, and a full bank account, but if the public does not trust your technology, you will ultimately fail. For a field as powerful, complex, and potentially unnerving as synthetic biology, public trust is not a "nice to have"; it is the foundational license to operate.
The history of technology is littered with promising innovations that were derailed not by technical or financial hurdles, but by a failure to earn public acceptance. The fierce, decades-long controversy over GMOs in Europe serves as a powerful and cautionary tale. The scientific community's failure to engage in an open, empathetic dialogue with the public created a vacuum that was filled with fear, misinformation, and mistrust—a legacy the field is still working to overcome.
For the current generation of synbio founders, learning this lesson is critical. Building public trust cannot be an afterthought; it must be a core part of your strategy from the very beginning.
The Wrong Approach: "Deficit Model" Communication
For years, the scientific community's approach to public communication was based on the "deficit model." This model assumes that public opposition to a technology is simply due to a lack of understanding—a "deficit" of scientific knowledge. The logical conclusion, then, is that if we just "educate" the public and give them more facts, they will naturally come to accept the technology.
This approach has been proven to be largely ineffective. Public concerns are often rooted not in a misunderstanding of the facts, but in deeper questions of values, ethics, control, and trust. Who owns this technology? Who benefits from it? What are the long-term, unforeseen consequences? Simply reciting scientific data does not answer these fundamental questions.
A New Model: Two-Way Engagement
A more effective approach is built on a foundation of genuine, two-way engagement. This is a model based on listening, dialogue, and a willingness to understand and respect the public's values and concerns, even when they are not purely scientific.
Listen First: Before you try to "educate," you must listen. What are people actually concerned about? What are their hopes and fears for this technology?
Be Transparent, Even with Uncertainty: Acknowledge what you don't know. The public is rightly skeptical of anyone who claims to have all the answers. Being transparent about the uncertainties and the potential risks is a powerful way to build credibility.
Engage with Critics: Do not dismiss critics as being "anti-science." Engage with them in respectful dialogue. Their critiques can often highlight valid concerns or blind spots that can make your own work better and more responsible.
Find Relatable Narratives: Connect your complex science to shared values and tangible benefits. Are you working to create more sustainable agriculture? Are you developing a cure for a disease that affects a community? Telling the human story behind your science is far more powerful than explaining the technical details.
As a founder, you are one of the most important ambassadors for this entire field. Your willingness to step outside the lab and engage with the public in an open, humble, and empathetic way is critical. The trust you build today will pave the way for the entire industry's success tomorrow.
Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Reading or relying on this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every startup’s situation is unique, and you should consult qualified legal or tax professionals before making decisions that may affect your business.