Risk governance of emerging technologies: the case of synthetic biology in Latin America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/st.1.2025.74-99Keywords:
synthetic biology, governance, emerging technologies, social systems theory, Latin AmericaAbstract
In recent years, the debate on the governance and regulation of emerging technologies has resurfaced strongly, especially in relation to artificial intelligence, driverless vehicles, and developments in the field of applied biology. Within this framework, this paper focuses on synthetic biology, analysing, from the perspective of Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, the challenges for its governance in Latin America. It is concluded that the reality of Latin America presents additional obstacles for the governance of synthetic biology, among which the recent emergence of the field, the high level of distrust in science and the existence of structures that distort the operation of social systems stand out.
Downloads
References
Akpoviri, F., Zainol, Z., y Baharum, S. (2020). Synthetic biology and biosafety governance in the European Union and the United States. IIUM Law Review, 28(1), 37-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v28i1.520
Balmer, A., Calvert, J., Marris, C., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., Frow, E., Kearnes, M., Bulpin, K., Schyfter, P., Mackenzie, A., & Martin, P. (2015). Taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations: reflections on working in post-ELSI spaces. Science and Technology Studies, 28(3), 3-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55340
Benítez, N., Ulke, G., Gómez, P., Rezende, C., Velázquez, J., Kamada, D., Mendoza, L., y Fernández, D. (2021). Perception of genetically engineered crops in Paraguay. GM Crops & Food, 12(1), 409-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2021.1969835
Breitling, R., Takano, E., y Gardner, T. (2015). Judging synthetic biology risks. Science, 347(6218), 107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5253
Burris, S., Kempa, M., y Shearing, C. (2008). Changes in governance: a cross-disciplinary review of current scholarship. Akron Law Review, 41(1), 1-66. DOI: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol41/iss1/7
Castilla, J., Chipana, Y., y Caballero, J. (2022). Gobernabilidad en América Latina: entre la dimensión filosófica y el poder ciudadano. Revista de Filosofía, 39(102), 218-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7042316
CEPAL (2022). Innovación para el desarrollo. La clave para una recuperación trasformadora en América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago: CEPAL. Obtenido en: https://repositorio.cepal.org/items/c173aca0-8414-41c9-8414-f52b3a696c9d
CEPAL, FAO y IICA (2017). La bioeconomía: oportunidades y desafíos para el desarrollo rural, agrícola y agroindustrial en América Latina y el Caribe. Obtenido en: https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/42724-la-bioeconomia-oportunidades-desafios-desarrollo-rural-agricola-agroindustrial
Cortés, J. (2018). Self-governance in Latin America: to what extent can citizens make policy via direct democracy? Latin American Policy, 47(4), 673-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12139
Cummings, C., y Kuzma, J. (2017). Societal Risk Evaluation Scheme (SRES): Scenario-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Synthetic Biology Applications. PLoS ONE 12(1), e0168564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168564
de Castro, B. (2016). 15 years of genetically modified organism (GMO) in Brazil: risks, labeling and public opinion. Agroalimentaria, 22(42), 103-117. Obtenido en: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1992/Resumenes/Abstract_199245407006_2.pdf
Delborne, J., Kokotovich, A., y Lunshof, J. (2020). Social license and synthetic biology: the trouble with mining terms. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 280-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1738023
Douglas, C., & Stemerding, D. (2014). Challenges for the European governance of synthetic biology for human health. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(1), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0006-7
Ely, A., van Zwanenberg, P., y Stirling, A. (2014). Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation. Reseaarch Policy, 43(3), 505-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.004
Federici, F., Rudge, T., Pollak, B., Haseloff, J., y Gutiérrez, R. (2013). Synthetic biology: opportunities for Chilean bioindustry and education. Biological Research, 46, 383-393. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602013000400010
Finkel, A. (2019). Designing a “Solution-Focused” Governance Paradigm for Synthetic Biology: Toward Improved Risk Assessment and Creative Regulatory Design. En B. Trump, C. Cummings, J. Kuzma, y I. Linkov (Eds.), Synthetic biology 2020: frontiers in risk analysis and governance (pp. 183-222). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_9
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., y Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptative governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 441-473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Gallup (2020). Wellcome Global Monitor. How Covid-19 affected people's lives and their views about science. Obtenido en: https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/Wellcome-Global-Monitor-Covid.pdf
Gatica-Arias, A., Valdez-Melara, M., Arrieta-Espinoza, G., Albertazzi-Castro, F., y Madrigal-Pana, J. (2019). Consumer attitudes toward food crops developed by CRISPR/Cas9 in Costa Rica. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 139, 417-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01647-x
Gomez-Hinostroza, S., Gurdo, N., Alvan, M., Nikel, P., Guazzaroni, M., Guaman, L., Castillo, D., Platero, R., y Barba-Ostria, C. (2023). Current landscape and future directions of synthetic biology in South America. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 11, 1069628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1069628
Gorman, M. (2012). A framework for anticipatory governance and adaptative management of synthetic biology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 3(2), 64-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2012040109
Granstrand, O., y Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90-91, 102098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098
Hagen, K. (2016). Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology— Some Critical Thoughts. NanoEthics, 10(2), 201-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0267-0
Heo, K., y Seo, Y. (2021). Anticipatory governance for newcomers: lessons learned from the UK, the Netherlands, Finland, and Korea. European Journal of Futures Research, 9(9), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00179-y
Hilgartner, S. (2012). Novel constitutions? New regimes of openness in synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 7(2), 188-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.5
Innerarity, D. (2020). Una teoría de la democracia compleja. Gobernar en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg.
Inter-American Development Bank (2017). Tecnolatinas. Latin America riding the technology tsunami. Obtenido en: https://publications.iadb.org/en/tecnolatinas-latin-america-riding-technology-tsunami
International Risk Governance Council (2011). Guidelines for Appropriate Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology. Obtenido en: https://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/irgc_SB_final_07jan_web.pdf
Keshava, R., Mitra, R., Gope, M., y Gope, R. (2018). Synthetic biology: overview and applications. En D. Barh, y V. Azevedo (Eds.), Omics technologies and bioengineering. Towards improving quality of life (pp. 63-93). Cambridge: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804659-3.00004-X
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1996). ¿Comunidades científicas o arenas transepistémicas de investigación? Una crítica de los modelos cuasi-económicos de la ciencia. REDES, 3(7), 129-160.
König, H. (2005). Discursos de identidad, Estado-nación y ciudadanía en América Latina: viejos problemas - nuevos enfoques y dimensiones. Historia y Sociedad, 11, 9-31. Obtenido en: https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/handle/unal/35728/23289-81187-1-PB.pdf
Kreimer, P. (2023). Techno-scientific promises, disciplinary fields, and social issues in peripheral contexts. Science as Culture, 32(1), 83-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2101918
Kreimer, P., y Vessuri, H. (2017). Latin American Science, Technology, and Society: A Historical and Reflexive Approach. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 17–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2017.1368622
Kuzma, J., y Tanji, T. (2010). Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options. Regulation and Governance, 4(1), 92-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x
Lai, H., Canavan, C., Cameron, L., Moore, S., Danchenko, M., Kuiken, T., Sekeyová, Z., y Freemont, P. (2019). Synthetic Biology and the United Nations. Trends in Biotechnology, 37(11), 1146-1151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.05.011
Li, J., Zhao, H., Zheng, L., y An, W. (2021). Advances in synthetic biology and biosafety governance. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9, 598087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.598087
López, O., Franco, E., Santos, E., Luna-Espinoza, I., y Aragón, F. (2016). Perceptions and attitudes of the Mexican urban population towards genetically modified organisms. British Food Journal, 118(12), 2873-2892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0247
Luhmann, N. (2006a). La sociedad de la sociedad. D. F.: Herder/Universidad Iberoamericana.
Luhmann, N. (2006b). Sociología del riesgo. México D.F.: Universidad Iberoamericana.
Luhmann, N. (2010). Organización y decisión. México D. F.: Herder/Universidad Iberoamericana.
Luhmann, N. (2020). Comunicación ecológica. ¿Puede la sociedad moderna responder a los peligros ecológicos? México D.F.: Universidad Iberoamericana.
Mandel, G., y Marchant, G. (2014). The living regulatory challenges of synthetic biology. Iowa Law Review, 100(1), 155–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410179
Marris, C. (2015). The Construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology. Science as Culture, 24(1), 83–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986320
Mascareño, A. (2000). Diferenciación funcional en América Latina: Los contornos de la sociedad concéntrica y los dilemas de su transformación. Persona y Sociedad, 13(1), 187-207.
Mascareño, A. (2003). Teoría de sistemas en América Latina. Conceptos fundamentales para la descripción de una diferenciación funcional concéntrica. Persona y Sociedad, 17(2), 1-20.
Meyer, M. (2013). Assembling, governing, and debating an emerging science: The rise of synthetic biology in France. BioScience, 63(5), 373-379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.5.10
Meyer, M. (2017). “Participating means accepting”: debating and contesting synthetic biology. New Genetics and Society, 36 (2), 118-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2017.1320942
Moreno, M. (2021). Gobernanza y sociedad civil: una revisión prospectiva desde América Latina. Encrucijada, 39, 18-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.20071949e.2021.39.79928
Mourby, M., Bell, J., Morrison, M., Faulkner, A., Li, P., Bicudo, E., Webster, A., y Kaye, J. (2022). Biomodifying the ‘natural’: from Adaptive Regulation to Adaptive Societal Governance. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(1), 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac018
Mukunda, G., Oye, K., y Mohr, S. (2009). What rough beast? Synthetic biology, uncertainty, and the future of biosecurity. Politics and the Life Sciences, 28(2), 2-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2990/28_2_2
Nadra, A., Rodríguez, P., Grunberg, R., Olalde, L., y Sánchez, I. (2020). Developing synthetic biology in Argentina: the Latin American TECNOx community as an alternative way for growth of the field. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 40(3), 357-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2020.1712322
Nordmann, A., y Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(5), 273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.26
Oliver, A. (2018). Behavioral Economics and the Public Acceptance of Synthetic Biology. Hastings Center Report, 48(2), S50-S55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.819
Pauwels, E. (2012). A reflection on the notion of cohabitation within and beyond the walls of life sciences. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 3 (2), 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2012040101
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010). New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Washington D.C.: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Obtenido en: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf
Peters, G., & Filgueiras, F. (2022). Introduction: Looking for Governance: Latin America Governance Reforms and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(4), 299-307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2020905
Polga-Hecimovich, J. (2021). The bureaucratic perils of presidentialism: political impediments to good governance in Latin America. Journal of Policy Studies, 36(4), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52372/kjps36401
Rager-Zisman, B. (2012). Ethical and regulatory challenges posed by synthetic biology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 55(4), 590–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2012.0043
Ribeiro, B., y Shapira, P. (2019). Anticipating governance challenges in synthetic biology: Insights from biosynthetic menthol. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 139(2019), 311-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.020
Rodriguez, A. (2019). Defining Governance in Latin America. Public Organization Review, 19, 5-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-0427-5
Román, C., Chacha, K., Loja, T., Andrade, D., y Hernández, Y. (2022). Attitudes of the Ecuadorian University Community Toward Genetically Modified Organisms. Frontiers in Bioengineering Biotechnology, 9, 801891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.801891
Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Rycroft, T., Hamilton, K., Haas, C., y Linkov, I. (2019). A quantitative risk assessment method for synthetic biology products in the environment. Science of The Total Environment, 696, 133940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133940
Shapira, P., Kwon, S., y Youtie, J. (2017). Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, 112, 1439-1469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2452-5
Siewert, S., Kieslich, K., Braun, M., y Dabrock, P. (2023). Synthetic biology and the question of public participation. Governance and ethics in dealing with emerging technologies. Cham: Springer.
Sinden, A. (2018). Lessons from Environmental Regulation. Hastings Center Report, 48(2), S56-S64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.820
Stemerding, D., Betten, W., Rerimassie, V., Robaey, Z., y Kupper, F. (2019). Future making and responsible governance of innovation in synthetic biology. Futures, 109, 213-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.11.005
Stichweh, R. (2007). The Eigenstructures of World Societyand the Regional Cultures of the World. En I. Rossi (Ed.), Frontiers of globalization research (pp. 133-150). Nueva York: Springer.
Stirling, A., Hayes, K., y Delborne, J. (2018). Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology. BCM Proceedings, 12(Suppl 8), 43-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-018-0111-3
Tadich, T., y Escobar-Aguirre, S. (2022). Citizens’ attitudes and perceptions towards genetically modified food in Chile: Special emphasis in CRISPR technology. Austral Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 54(1), 1-8. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0719-81322022000100001
Tait, J. (2009). Governing synthetic biology: processes and outcomes. En M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra, y H. de Vriend (Eds.), Synthetic biology. The technoscience and its societal consequences (pp. 141-154). Cham: Springer.
Tait, J. (2012). Adaptive governance of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 13(7), 579-579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.76
Tait, J., y Wield, D. (2021). Policy support for disruptive innovation in the life sciences. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 33(3), 307-319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1631449
Thizy, D., Coche, I., & de Vries, J. (2020). Providing a policy framework for responsible gene drive research: An analysis of the existing governance landscape and priority areas for further research. Wellcome Open Research, 5, 173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16023.1
Trump, B. (2017). Synthetic biology regulation and governance: Lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore. Health Policy, 121(11), 1139-1146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.07.010
Trump, B., Cummings, C., Kuzma, J., y Linkov, I. (2018). A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology. Regulation and Governance, 12(1), 88–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12142
Trump, B., Galaitsi, S., Appleton, E., Bleijs, D., Florin, M., Gollihar, J., Hamilton, A., Kuiken, T., Lentzos, F., Mampuys, R., Merad, M., Novossiolova, T., Oye, K., Perkins, E., Garcia-Rayero, N., Rhodes, C., y Linkov, I. (2020). Building biosecurity for synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 16, e9723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20209723
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO science report. The race against time for smarter development. París: UNESCO. Obtenido en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250
van Kersbergen, K., y van Warden, F. (2004). ‘Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00149.x
Wolfe, A., Campa, M., Bergmann, R., Stelling, S., Bjornstad, D., y Shumpert, B. (2016). Synthetic biology R&D risks: social-institutional contexts matter! Trends in Biotechnology, 34(5), 353-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.01.008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 César Cisternas Irarrázabal, Arturo Vallejos-Romero, Minerva Cordovés-Sánchez, Felipe Sáez-Ardura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sociología y tecnociencia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The journal allows the authors to retain publishing rights. Authors may reprint their articles in other media without having to request authorization, provided they indicate that the article was originally published in Sociología y Tecnociencia.
