Does Technology or Expertise Matter? An Exploration of Attitudes and Opinions on Synthetic Biology Policy and Governance Needs

This dissertation explores risk perceptions of synthetic biology from expert groups through elicited feedback on risk analysis and governance needs. Because synthetic biology (SB) is an emerging technology field, uncertainty around human health and environmental effects of the technologies exist. To better characterize potential human health and environmental effects and weigh potential governance strategies, expert feedback was elicited through policy Delphi study methods. These expert opinions and stated needs for risk analysis and governance were collected using upstream oversight assessment, then compared using theories of risk perception. Mixed-method analysis of the data were conducted to look for cultural cognition and psychometric influences, and for trends within and between 'disciplinary culture' groups. This work comprises four studies that vary either the disciplinary group or technology application to see which factors influence risk perceptions of SB applications. The first article explores the regulatory regime for a specific SB case study, comparing expert perceptions of risk analysis and governance needs for the technological application to the existing regulatory framework; the second article explores 'disciplines as cultures', holding the SB constant to look for the varying risk perceptions, and then governance and policy needs, stated by disciplinary groups; the third looks at elicited expert opinions of four SB applications from a multidisciplinary group; and the fourth looks at concept mapping from two groups, SB experts and non-experts, who share common expertise on environmental justice. The area of expertise is viewed as each group's cultural cognition, and varying attitudes and perceptions of risk and governance needs are explored.