The Sociology of iGEM

Modern science communication is about more than telling non-scientists what to think. Establishing a two-way conversation with those outside the profession allows a wider variety of socially relevant issues to emerge naturally. Our ‘human practices’ effort therefore, has not used our wetlab project as a starting point. Instead, we have conducted a sociological investigation into iGEM.

We found out why students participate in iGEM, how they devised their projects and how they react to the philosophical questions raised by synthetic biology. We asked journalists what makes synthetic biology interesting, and how news media might shape perceptions. We spoke to social scientists sceptical of the value of iGEM, both for society and scientific research. We questioned private institutions that fund iGEM teams about what makes the competition a worthwhile investment. We quizzed a previous iGEM judge on the value of ‘human practices’ within the competition. And spoke to artists about the language of MIT’s synthetic biology.

Our research culminates in an event jointly held with the Science Museum, London, where we’ll bring together ideas around the ability of iGEM to influence the culture of scientific research, and the implications this has for the external image of synthetic biology.

Conclusions

We have unearthed a wide variety of views on iGEM, synthetic biology, and the politics of transparency. Many are sceptical of the productivity of the field to date, and others see a contradiction in the competitive element of iGEM. Financial cost appears as an important barrier to entry, and the motives of participants tend towards career advancement rather than on the research.

The transparency and open-source ethos of the BioBrick Foundation could be seen as political; it serves to distance the project from competing private research such as that undertaken by Craig Venter. The ‘hacking’ ethos often encouraged by MIT and evident within iGEM has shaped the beginnings of the ‘garage biology’ movement, which has the potential to outpace traditional research. We have explored the democratising effect this will have for science in the future.

iGEM has also been described as a platform for training in innovation management, where the science itself is of less importance than the skills gained in marketing and teamwork. In the end, questions remain about the relevance of synthetic biology in terms of its products, and in terms of its interest to non-scientists.

iGEM has provided us with a wealth of complex sociological dynamics to examine, and we have approached it with a critical eye. We have learnt a huge amount, and we hope this analysis will be of use to teams and judges in the future.