On Friday 28^th November, the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), a division of the South African Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) hosted a seminar to discuss the recently launched Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Strategy for Africa (STISA-2024). Although there were some technical difficulties with trying to connect with panellists from three other countries as well as the HSRC offices in Cape Town and Durban, the seminar finally got underway with an introduction from Professor Gillian Marcelle, who is the new head of CeSTII. Her opening remarks mentioned that this was the first of many such seminars that the centre was going to host in order to engage more critically with the policy aspects of STI in South Africa and on the African continent more broadly. Unfortunately, Mr Hambani Masheleni, the senior policy officer in the Human Resources, Science and Technology department of the African Union was unable to connect from Ethiopia in time to give an overall presentation of STISA and so Prof Marcelle ran through his slides to give a brief overview of the document. What struck me most was that whilst the document was meant to include all African citizens, it cannot be downloaded and is currently only available by e-mailing Mahama Ouedraogo at the AU: OuedraogoM@africa-union.org. I have therefore not had the opportunity to read the document (although both the HSRC and the Department of Science and Technology (DST) promised that the document would be available on their websites soon), but in essence it replaces the previous African Science and Technology Plan of Action (CPA) that was adopted by the AU in 2006. The rhetoric of the document speaks to a participatory process involving scientists at home and in the diaspora, policy-makers and the private sector in science, technology and innovation that is the prime driver of economic growth and development on the continent for the next decade. It is focussed on six core goals: Eradication of Hunger and Achieving Food Security, Prevention and Control of Diseases, Communication (Physical and Intellectual Mobility), Protection of our Space, Live Together- Build the Society, and Wealth Creation.

The next speaker was Dr David Ockwell from the STEPS centre at the University of Sussex who joined in the discussion over the phone. He referred to the critical Nature paper that had appeared in response to the imminent adoption of STISA, that emphasised that the top-down administrative aspect of the strategy as well as its lack of firm pledges focussed too little on actual implementation given resource constraints on the continent. Dr Ockwell himself highlighted that there was more emphasis on the science and technology aspects of the policy and less on the innovation side- echoing Prof Marcelle’s earlier comment that there was insufficient focus on entrepreneurship depsite its being mentioned in the strategy. He alluded to a gardening metaphor where policy-makers were the gardeners trying to provide an enabling environment of soil and water so that they could nurture the seeds of innovation into life.

Following Dr Ockwell, we heard another perspective from academia, but this time from an African academic, Associate Professor Clapperton Mavhunga who is now based at MIT. A/Prof Mavhunga provided a more reflexive comment on STISA that engaged with more fundamental aspects of innovation in the African context. He brought up important references to the wealth of innovation that happens in the informal sector in Africa that is not currently recognised. In response to a question, he said that in Africa we have some serious choices to make around whether we want to ‘make the formal more informal or whether we want to formalise the informal.’ Answering these deeper questions around what makes innovation in the African context unique is something that Africa’s academics need to focus on more intently if we are to aid policy-makers in devising useful strategies- he also emphasised the importance of engaging with the African diaspora in this regard. As Prof Marcelle said, rather than learning from the rise of the ‘Asian Tiger’ economies, Africa should probably be engaging more with the scholarship that has developed out of Latin America where innovation has been interpreted to fit the unique situation in that region. Africa needs to discover what innovation means for it before it can fully embrace a STISA-like strategy.

Dr Daan du Toit was next up on the speakers list, providing a perspective on the strategy from government. His main emphasis was that whilst the strategy was not perfect, and that he could also provide an extensive critique of the document, it nevertheless provided a platform for discussing STI policy on the continent. He referred to the need for us all to take ownership of the document- as it was a product adopted by all AU countries- and that we all had a responsibility to ensure that it became a living document that was relevant in regional and national contexts.

The open discussion amongst attendees showed that the presentations by the various speakers had definitely sparked interest in the audience and made them consider the role of STI in development on the continent. A point was raised that the success of STISA required government departments to get out of their siloes and to engage more critically with the concepts underpinning policy in developing countries-such as economic growth and development. It is important to debate what exactly it is that we mean by these concepts and to realise that how me measure them (GDP, R&D expenditure) guides what we see as succesful outcomes of particular policy interventions.

The final speaker, Chux Daniels, a visiting researcher at CeSTII and PhD candidate at SPRU at the University of Sussex, summed up the proceedings well in his closing statement. He noted that one of the most important aspects of the discussion was a recognition that there was a need for African scholars to engage more critically with what we see as STI on the continent. This seminar provided a first step towards wider and more critical engagement with Science, Technology and Innovation that can meet the unique development challenges and leverage the opportunities on the African continent.

“What is responsibility? What is innovation? What do they mean for organizations? In order to understand responsible innovation, each one of the term’s component parts must first be clarified.”

In this new and comprehensive book on RRI, authors Xavier Pavie, Victor Scholten and Daphné Carthy guide us through the multifaceted issues linked to responsible innovation for innovators as well as citizens. The book’s approach is both conceptual and operational: the major challenges for innovation and responsibility in the 21st century are presented while the process required for organisations to innovate responsibly is illustrated step by step.

The book is available on Amazon and the publisher’s website.

Download the full report

SynBio represents a continuation of genetic engineering

A Commentary by Dr Siobhán Yeats, Director of Biotechnology, European Patent Office, Munich

There is no clear and generally accepted definition of SynBio that sharply delimits it from “ordinary” GM technology. SynBio is defined in the report as the engineering of biology in order to synthesise complex, biologically-based systems with functions that do not exist in nature. Engineering perspectives may be applied at all structural levels, from individual molecules to whole cells, tissues and organisms. The idea is to design biological systems in a rational and systematic way. Current research is directed, inter alia, to the development of minimal cells or genomes containing only basic essential functions, and to the creation of bioengineered microorganisms that can produce new medicines, biofuels and other products. The use of standardised parts that can be inserted into all kinds of cells to engineer them as desired is envisaged. 

The main issue is to what extent SynBio in practice really goes far beyond genetic engineering, as claimed in the report.  For the most part the report sets out what SynBio seeks to do, with less emphasis on what it has actually done up until now. Indeed, its far-reaching aims appear to be what really distinguishes SynBio from genetic engineering as it has been practiced for decades.  The actual achievements to date seem to represent rather a continuation of general genetic engineering, using the technical advances that have taken place in, for example, DNA sequencing and synthesis, rather than something going far beyond it.

The real issues to be considered seem likely to be determined by what has been done and what is likely to be achieved in our lifetimes. The concept of using standardised parts to engineer things in many types of cells is exciting, and it is not surprising that it has caught the world’s imagination. However, a bacterium is not like a car or a mobile phone, and a promoter that works in E. coli is usually inactive in a yeast or mammalian cell. The standardised parts approach may in the end be constrained by the natural limitations of biological systems. Likewise, minimal genomes have so far been created by stripping down natural ones, not by assembling artificial new ones.

No doubt the SynBio approach will lead to exciting new possibilities to produce substances in cells, such as biofuels. However, the question remains what is really new about this. Although SynBio seeks to produce new biological systems from scratch, results so far have involved adapting existing systems, not creating entirely new ones. The production of artemisinin in a yeast engineered to contain the artemisinin metabolic pathway, some dozen genes, was a tremendous scientific achievement by Keasling et al. and an important one for patients suffering from malaria. However, it seems debatable whether this represents a real paradigm shift. For several decades scientists have been engineering microorganisms and higher organisms to produce chemicals, or for use in bioremediation, by introducing genes encoding enzymes or even whole enzymatic pathways. One prominent case was the famous “golden rice”, which was engineered in the late 1990s to contain enzymes enabling the rice cell to produce beta-carotene.

In view of the interest SynBio has raised, a public debate on the issues mentioned in the report is necessary, and people must be heard and involved. However, virtually all these issues – risks of release, deliberate misuse, playing God, social justice – apply equally well (or not) to classical GM inventions, and they were discussed back in the 1970s and repeatedly since.

As far as the objection to playing God is concerned, human beings have been trying to improve on nature for thousands of years – none of today’s cultivated crops existed in their current form in nature, but they are rather the product of centuries of selective breeding. Genetic engineering speeds up the improvement process and enhances possibilities, but even it has not to date proved capable of creating “new life forms”.

Risks must always be considered, but they will depend on the kind of research to be performed. It hence seems most appropriate that risks should be assessed on a case by case basis, as mentioned in the report. Microorganisms with a minimal genome are likely to be non-viable in the wild, and if not they can easily be engineered to be so (by knocking out a gene encoding something essential that needs to be supplied in the culture medium, a time-honoured standard genetic method). Bacteria carrying numerous extra genes, such as those synthesising artemisinin, usually lose these genes rapidly in the wild, since the genes and their expressed protein products burden the cell machinery and are a disadvantage to it. So the problems associated with accidental release can easily be minimised and effective containment assured.

As for bio-terrorism, this cannot of course be ruled out, but there are plenty of natural pathological bugs available to terrorists, such as anthrax, that are much more likely to survive in the wild than artificial organisms created by SynBio for the reasons above. Indeed there is some concern about growing biosecurity risks linked to the increasing availability and decreasing price of DNA synthesis. This makes containment of hazardous biological material much more difficult because published (sequence) information is enough to make a deadly organism such as a modified H5N1 virus. The problems associated with SynBio are thus by no means unique to that area. 

The concerns about social justice are again not peculiar to SynBio, but could apply to all sorts of technical fields, not even just to biological ones. Such considerations have not stopped us from replacing humans with machines to do all sorts of things, from working in agriculture to selling train tickets. Few people would advocate going back to isolating all kinds of pharmaceutical substances from trees, as we used to. Indeed it could even be argued that it is more environmentally sustainable to make products in bacteria than to cut down trees for this. Social issues are always important, but it is difficult to argue that we could stop the development of science for such reasons. Technological development often brings new opportunities as well as losses, and we may hope that SynBio will do the same.

In conclusion, SynBio is a diffuse term that does not clearly delimit the area from mainstream GM science. Scientific results so far appear to support the notion that SynBio represents a continuation of genetic engineering rather than a quantum leap into the unknown. Its current risks and opportunities appear similar to those of GM in general. Ethical and safety concerns and social issues need to be debated in full, but they do not appear really different for SynBio than for other areas. 

This research should contribute to putting these issues into perspective and help to stimulate public debate and disseminate valuable information on SynBio. The more practically feasible applications proposed for SynBio undoubtedly hold promise to deliver useful products and new methods for society. Overemphasising other aspects, such as the creation of truly artificial life forms, may detract from the real nature and promise of the SynBio field.

Dr. von Schomberg’s presentation, “Toward a Paradigm Shift in Research and Innovation Policy”, proposed a framework for the establishment and funding of research agendas. According to this view, research initiatives and choices should be guided by normative objectives (socially desirable and acceptable ends), rooted in principles of responsibility. In particular, he also highlighted the importance of identifying and addressing, in a unified and deliberate manner, grand societal and environmental challenges. The goal of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), defined by Dr. von Schomberg as “a transparent, interactive, process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other, with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its (marketable) outcomes and impact”, is to steer research in an “issue-oriented manner”, and increased accountability on the part of the governmental bodies to achieve “right outcomes” in addressing the challenges identified.

Dr. von Schomberg’s presentation focused on embedding the dimensions of Responsible Innovation in research agenda setting from the outset to enable normatively motivated research. He considered the differences between the current status quo, where research activities tend to be highly specialised and isolated, often lacking common objectives of societal relevance, and the potential for RRI to provide a common frame and motivation for research efforts drawn from normative anchor points. The latter, he suggested, had the potential for greater positive outcomes, as individual research activities could be coordinated in a manner that was efficient and mutually beneficial.

It is useful, when contemplating a moral imperative as a motivation for action, to consider its contrary. “Irresponsible innovation” may refer to situations whereby a technology fails to be accepted, or to meet its potential. This could be as a result of mismanagement,  poor communication, or lack of proper knowledge of societal and ethical implications, rather than through deliberately nefarious intent. Dr. von Schomberg illustrated this point with references to recent examples of technologies failing to be accepted in Europe as a result of one or a combination of these factors, such as  genetically modified food in Europe, or the IRIS biometric scanners in UK airports. He also used the example of the electronic patient record system as an example of that happens when ethical or societal implications are only considered in the late stages of design. Although the system -built at great cost- functioned as intended, fundamental ethical issues, such as the protection of patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records, were not considered until the later stages of the project. As a result it was finally rejected and abandoned by the government. However, he also noted that the failures do not necessarily have to lie with the research effort. Political pressure can also play a role in this, with “policy pull”, where a technology is forced out there before is technically capable of completing the task expected of it (such as the attempt to introduce biometric passports in the Netherlands) being a prime example.

Connected to RRI, Dr. von Schomberg also introduced and spoke of “frugal innovation”, whereby innovations may be developed in such a manner that seeks large-scale social improvement and consider issues of costs (low income markets), greater accessibility, and widespread diffusion as a priority In particular, he stressed the value of this for medical technologies in developing economies, where frugal innovation has led to cheaper prosthetics and vaccines and benefited many more people as a result. He suggested that RRI could assist initiatives such as this, by identifying barriers to accessibility and addressing them in a direct, and coordinated fashion.

Dr. von Schomberg’s presentation was followed by an interactive discussion, which delved into some of the practical and normative specifics of RRI. One of the most lively discussion points related to the scope of the approach, with some participants suggesting that it remained unclear how the ‘innovation’ in Responsible Research Innovation could be effectively addressed under the highly decentralised agency that characterises current entrepreneurship. . Agenda setting was a key focus of Dr. von Schomberg’s presentation, and some of the participants sought clarification on how this could be translated beyond the scope publicly funded projects. Other issues were also raised, including:

• the ability to coordinate effectively so many stakeholders for the purposes of tackling the grand challenges,
• the great difficulty to agree on common ethical stances and,
• the difficulties in predicting and anticipating technological developments in the near and long term.

The participants were also unclear as to how the agenda would be set without disagreement, and whether to potential drawbacks to more direct control in the setting the research agenda were properly considered. As the visit drew to a close however, the participants agreed that, even considering the time already spent, there was much more to discuss and explore, leading them to continue the discussion into the evening under the Roman sun.

Dr. Dr.phil. René von Schomberg is an agricultural scientist and philosopher. He is an author/(co-editor) of 14 books. He holds Ph.D’s from the University of Twente, the Netherlands (Science and Technology Studies) and J.W.Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Philosophy). He has been a European Union Fellow at George Mason University, USA in 2007 and has been with the European Commission since 1998

Responsible Innovation – front cover

A timely publication, echoing the recent growth of interest in Responsible Innovation (RI), this edited volume brings together a comprehensive set of perspectives in this vibrant new field.

The direction of socio-technical trajectories and the means to (re-)orient them towards desirable ends – in this case under the flagship of responsibility – are questions that scholars of science and innovation policy are increasingly concerned with. Responsible Innovation, we are told, promises to address the systemic irresponsibility associated with innovation, to put grand societal challenges at the heart of innovation efforts, and to allow for a deep reflection on purposes and motivations, through values rather than rules.

The book comprises of multidisciplinary contributions ranging from Philosophy to Business Studies, through Sociology and Technological Studies. It is articulated around addressing an ambitious challenge: how can we collectively and democratically orient science and innovation efforts towards societally desirable goals? This volume offers both theoretical reflections (chap.1-8) and real-world accounts of efforts being made to address the aspirations of Responsible Innovation (see especially chap.9-13). Contributions complementarily attend to the challenges and motivations of Responsible Innovation (chap 1-3), user perspectives, interaction and deliberation (chap 5, 12), societal aspirations (chap 1, 3, 13), governance arrangements and tools (chap 2, 8, 4, 9), and ethical reasoning and practice (chap.7, 6, 11).

This publication provides a welcome overview of the current approaches and activities in the field. As such, it is enlightening read that doesn’t shy away from critical tensions and challenges (see particularly chap 1, 7, 8).