9. The necessity of an academic and public debate
From previous industrial paradigm shifts, we have—post hoc— learned the necessity of an engaged academic and public dialogue. Industry 4.0 has already triggered a debate about what it will be like to live alongside robots in the future. Industry 5.0 discussions touch on the very essence of humanity’s existence, physical integrity, and relationship with nature. At the moment, this debate seems theoretical, yet it will soon come to the fore. As usual, technical advances are ahead of the public debates. A synthetic biology open language (SBOL) is already in place. The field is defined by engineers, and the benefits are couched in engineering terms; that is, engineered biological systems will process information, manipulate chemicals, fabricate materials and structures, produce energy, provide food, and maintain and enhance human health and our environment [10]. Important questions remain as to control of and access to the products, and who will benefit. Should we grant patents on living organisms? How much bioengineering of human embryos is acceptable? How much biological retro-engineering of living humans can we afford or will we permit? Through scenarios and case studies, we must create awareness of the implications of synthetic biology. As an interdisciplinary field, it needs to be integrated into many courses of studies. For example, the universities of Oxford, Bristol, and Warwick have founded a joint doctoral program that admits students from engineering, biology, biochemistry, physics, plant sciences, chemistry, statistics, mathematics, and computing. In addition, synthetic biology research should be developed with a global, open dialogue about the scientific, social, and economic implications, without shying away from a public debate about the ethical aspects of this emerging field.