Team:Manchester/Human Practices

UoM iGEM | Project Cutiful

HUMAN PRACTICES

This year the University of Manchester will be introducing synthetic biology to hair care. There is a microbiome of bacteria that binds to hair and spends a significant amount of time growing and multiplying on the outer layer of hair. Our product, ‘Cutiful’, aims to produce genetically modified E. coli that can integrate into the hair microbiome to continuously produce a dye, fragrance and a reparative protein, known as PepG - decapeptide. Cutiful is a chassis for the creation of an entire range of new-line hair care products.

Cutiful is in the unique position of being a Synthetic biology based cosmetic hair dye to be used directly by a non-scientific public. Bearing this in mind, we took two approaches to human practices.

Firstly, we considered the demands of the public with regards to hair dyes, and how we could tailor our product to best suit their needs, resulting in product that truly reflects the needs of the public.

Secondly, we aimed to characterise the interaction between the publics and researchers, specifically the phenomenon known as ‘Synbiophobiaphobia’. This idea came about as we pivoted away from our initial idea for human practices, where we would spread confidence in Synthetic biology. At first, assumed that the non-scientific public would not be accepting of our product, and that we would somehow need to overcome this for Cutiful to be successful. This assumption, held by scientists who fear the public will reject any GM research, has been termed ‘synbiophobiaphobia’. Due to synbiophobiaphobia, several measures are used to gain public acceptance, which are often unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. As it turned out: it was our scientific minds we had to watch out for….

Our integrated human practices

In 8 bullet points:

1.

Integrate: Fragrance and Decapeptide- we integrated fragrance and decapeptide production from feedback from the symposium as scientists highlighted that E. coli cultures have a pungent unpleasant smell and added decapeptides in response to the public's opinion of hair dyes as damaging products.

2.

Easily removable hair dyes- People at the science festival wanted dyes that come off easily so we decided to dye hair using a chromophore that anchors to the hair using a hydrophobic tag, which will be much easier to remove..

3.

Culture can be maintained at home-We envision to sell our product as an inactivated cell culture, which can be cultured at home. This will mean that users will not have to keep buying hair dyes, but rather inexpensive cell media. This is integrated as we originally planned for one-time cell cultures that were to be applied to the hair and then eventually washed away.

4.

Integration of a kill switch- Fears of the bacteria becoming pathogenic, expressed by both the public and fellow scientists, meant that we designed a kill switch.

5.

Design of an allergy test- Cutiful arose from the will to make hair dyes a safer, more informed process for members of the lay public. To this end, a skin test to predict allergic reactions was also designed, to make possible the responsible and educated use of our product, Cutiful (Modelling, Act V scene II: Design of the Allergenicity Test) .

6.

Synbiophobiaphobia-For human practices, we first looked at how the public perceives synthetic biology because scientists at the symposium thought that the public would not be comfortable with putting GM bacteria on their hair. We later found that the public we interviewed were actually fairly comfortable with the idea of GM cosmetics and thus shifted human practices to investigate and characterise synbiophobiaphobia.

7.

Viability assays- In order to check our bacteria’s viability under environmental pressures, suggested by experts we interviewed, we designed and ran experiments to check resistance to chlorine and UV.

8.

Construct re-design-After discussion with experts in the field of decapeptides, we redesigned our BioBrick constructs to make a poly-RBS system as well as fusion protein constructs to overcome the inability of E. coli (in our hands) to express such small genes.

Cutiful – our human story

Or: A summer in the lives of STEM students trying to be sociologists, business(wo)men, scientists, eloquent adults, efficient readers, savvy interviewers, and finding out it’s not just waffle from here on. Also: negative findings, startling results, and a lot of laughter.

Prologue: The Acts

In which we set the stage

We have decided to present out human practices story in acts, where each accounts a key chapter in the development of our project.

Act I describes how we presented our ideas at the Manchester SYNBIOCHEM symposium. The discussions we had with the researchers shaped the first instances of development of our product into what it is today. Due to the critical feedback we received at the symposium, we had decided to integrate smells into our product; as public perception of GMOs was brought up frequently during the symposium, we also decided to pursue public acceptance of our GM bacteria for our human practices.

Act II details how we went about exploring public perception of GMOs as well as determining the needs of the public in regard to hair dyes. We used sticker charts and opinions boards to gather quantitative data on how the public ‘feel’ about GMOs as well as their hair dyeing experiences. Once we had gained the public’s cooperation we transitioned to a semi-structured interview at the stall, where we asked the public how they would improve current hair dyes, as well as determine their perception of GMOs, specifically our GM cosmetics. We found that the public were quite discontented with current hair dyes and were very open to new ideas; they gave us many improvements which we could consider, and we tried to integrate as many of these into our project as possible, such as integrating decapeptides. We also found that the public were surprisingly accepting of GM hair dyes and upon reflection we decided to develop our human practices project into exploring why we felt the need to convince the public of our product in the first place.

Act III & IV shows how we investigated the assumption we made that the public needed to be convinced. We discovered the phenomenon known as ‘synbiophobiaphobia’ and decided to characterise it as well as investigate why we fell victim to the information deficit model. As we the Manchester iGEM team is based in the Manchester institute of Biotechnology we are surrounded by researchers. We took this opportunity to interview some of these scientists and then analyse the transcripts to understand their interactions and perceptions of the lay public.

Finally, Act V details what we learnt from reaching out to specialists in the field of hair care. We had the opportunity to talk to trichologists, barbers and a researcher who co-authored the paper upon which we based our decapeptide constructs on. From our conversations we were made aware of some of the more practical sides of our product, which we did not consider. We decided to design an allergy test and carry out bacteria viability assays to make sure that out bacteria will be viable in different day-to-day conditions.

Act I: The Symposium

In which Darwin, Franklin and Sanger try their hands at acting.

As our ideas for Cutiful developed, we presented our project at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology’s Science Symposium. Many researchers involved in synthetic and commercial biology came together to share ideas and present their findings at this symposium; our idea fit perfectly into this event. We prepared a poster for the symposium, which allowed us to demonstrate our idea to the people present. Our poster grabbed the attention of many scientists with whom we further discussed our project. We explained what our bacteria will be able to do (i.e.: secrete pigments that can bind to hair, dyeing it, which will be better than current products on the market because fewer harmful chemicals will be produced)

Fig.1 Symposium Poster

Many of the scientists we talked to were quite receptive of our idea for Cutiful, but raised a few concerns and offered thoughtful advice, which we then tried to incorporate into our project:

Will E. coli be able to bind to hair long enough to produce a dye?

Yes, it should.One scientist questioned whether E. coli would be able to bind to hair long enough to produce these dyes. We explained that we had already found an E. coli strain that naturally binds to hair and is part of the hair microbiome. Hence, our final product will incorporate our BioBricks into this ATCC 25922 strain rather than the domesticated lab strain DH5a E. coli. We also carried out hair binding assay of E. coli and found that even domesticated strains of E. coli can bind to hair.

Since ATCC 25922 can survive on hair for long periods of time, we assumed that it is resilient enough to withstand the harsh conditions that come with being on hair as well as find enough nutrients to remain viable.

The smell of growing E. coli is not pleasant. Will people want such pungent cultures on their hair?

We can add fragrance. Some researchers pointed out that E. coli has quite a pungent smell which the general public might find unappealing, especially when our product design places live cultures on hair. The researchers encouraged us to reconsider our approach, fearing the strong smell of E. coli would put off any potential customers – no matter how much better our hair dyes may be from those already on the market. We understood that this was a major flaw in our project which had to be addressed immediately. We decided that our E. coli will also secrete in situ a fragrance to mask the strong smell of E. coli cultures. Perfuming the hair has become another of Cutiful‘s strong marketing features.

Do you think the public will be happy to have genetically modified bacteria in their cosmetics?

Let's ask them! Scientists questioned how comfortable the public would be with putting GM bacteria on their hair. It is understandable, given the portrayal of genetic modification in the media and the potential environmental concerns, that the public may not want to intentionally put GM bacteria on their hair. We decided to investigate how the lay public perceives synthetic biology, specifically how GM cosmetics are perceived. Using that insight, we hope to overcome some of the barriers people may face when accepting synthetic biology and its vast potential to do good in society.

Act II: The Community Festival

In which we get answers we don’t expect and play with stickers.

With the generous help of Dr. Nick Weise, who organises many of the public outreach events for the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, the we were able to set up a stall at the Community Science Festival organised by the Manchester Museum of Natural Science and History. The Science Festival involves many volunteers from the University presenting fun and interactive activities to capture the imagination of the public.

We attended the festival hoping to gather data on how the public perceives GMOs, with a particular focus on the use of GM bacteria in cosmetic purposes. We intended to use this information to overcome some of the prejudice the public may have against GM products.

At the stall, we were able to engage with the public and collect both qualitative and quantitative data to help understand public perception of GMOs and the demands of the public regarding hair dyes. To gather this data, we used a mix of semi-structured interviews, sticker charts and opinion boards – the data from which was then analysed and can be found summarised below (Fig. 7, 8 &10).

We first presented the public with sticker charts which asked them to place a sticker on the section which best represented their opinion; as there were two sticker charts, we were able to gather data on public perceptions of GMOs as well as public contentment with current hair dyes. We then directed the public to an opinion board, where we encouraged the public to write down how they would improve current hair dyes. Finally, if the public were willing, we carried out a semi-structured interview with the individual as the stall, where we explored their perception of GMOs and their experiences with hair dyes (if any). We then took this data and analysed it to then integrate into our product. The first sticker chart asked the public how satisfied they were with current hair dyes, which allowed us determine if there is a real need for our product on the market. We counted the stickers and plotted a graph of the results (Fig.7).

Figures 4-6; Fig.4, Upper Left: Initial setup of the opinion board and the sticker charts, as well as a short description of our project, Cutiful. Fig.5, Lower Left: the opinion board at the end of the day. Opinions were read and classed and can be found summarised in fig.8. Fig.6, Right: sticker chart collecting public opinion on GMOs. Stickers were counted and classed and results can be found summarised in fig.10.

We found that there was a consequential variation in users’ satisfaction with hair dyes. Further investigation, during the semi-structured interviews, showed that usually individuals who do not dye their hair regularly were quite satisfied with their experience, whilst frequent users, who had experienced the long-term consequences of the harsh chemicals, expressed their dissatisfaction quite strongly. Of course, there were some cases of horrible first-time dyeing experience. This shows that the individuals we can expect to use Cutiful are people who frequently dye their hair and are aware of the potential damage that can be done. Moreover, we believe that the reason why so many people are ‘happy’ with their hair dye experience is simply because they do not have any other choice; the public knows that dyeing hair will cause hair damage, and this is simply a fact that they must accept.

Fig.8 Graph showing suggested improvements in current hair dyes, opinions measured in number of people. Data collected from opinion board, Fig.5.

Once we had established the individual’s general opinion on hair dyes and GMOs, we directed them to an opinion board (Fig.5) where they could suggest how they would improve current hair dyes. We received an array of suggestions, some multiples times, which we then plotted onto a graph (Fig.8). We analysed their ideas and tried to integrate their suggestions into our project; our final Cutiful product will therefore reflect the needs of the public, rather than what scientists think the public need.

From these opinions, we selected those with solutions that could be implemented in our final Cutiful product:

Less damaging hair dyes: as mentioned before, the chemicals in current hair dyes damage hair, sometimes irreparably. As our product will not require invasive pigments to colour hair, the outer cuticle layer of hair will remain intact. Moreover, we integrated a secreted decapeptide that will actually reform disulphide bonds, which means that the application of Cutiful will actually repair hair.

Natural hair dyes: as opposed to ‘artificial’ hair dyes. It is quite difficult to determine what the public mean by natural, as it is an abstract term. Even when questioned during the semi-structured interviews, the public could not articulate what constitutes something as ‘natural’. We, as scientists, consider our product to be quite natural as all the components to make this GM bacteria were found from nature and only slightly altered (but this would need to be marketed appropriately).

Cost: many of the individuals we talked to mentioned that the cost would be one of the most important factors when choosing to buy our product. One interviewee mentioned that she would not even consider buying a dye if it ‘cost more than £5’. We decided that, instead of selling one-time cell cultures that would be applied to hair and then eventually washed off, we would sell cultures as a batch which can be cultivated. This would mean that all the customers have to do is buy inexpensive cell media to keep culturing the bacteria and – in theory – they would have an indefinite amount of hair dye, which would save them money in the long run.

Easy removal: some of the public also complained of hair dyes being too hard to remove; for example, when a semi-permanent hair dye advertised that it would come off in a certain number of washes, it would often remain in the hair for much longer. As our product uses hydrophobic interactions to anchor the chromophore to the hair rather than more permanent electrostatic interactions, thus the removal process will be made easier.

Kill switch: concerns over the pathogenic nature of some strains of E. coli, meant that some of the public were concerned that our product could cause infection. Our product is meant to wash of hair and enter the sewage system; our product may also be able to colonise other surfaces, which we may not want. So, we decided to design robust a kill switch to integrate into our product to ensure that the E. coli ‘self-destruct’ when no longer needed.

The integration of hair repair into our scenting and dyeing product makes Cutiful a complete hair care product, where the bacteria become protein factories bound to hair, continuously producing compounds which allow Cutiful to compete with the multifunctional products already on the market. Our final E. coli product will secrete, in situ, colour (fluorescent green, fluorescent red, and blue), fragrance (vanillin and limonene, for vanilla and citrus scent, respectively) and a decapeptide (strengthen and repair hair (Cruz et al., 2017)).

How the public perceives...

Public perception of Synthetic Biology

At the Manchester Museum Science Community Festival, we also determined how the public perceives GMO, especially GM cosmetics. Going forward with the feedback from the symposium, we wanted to know if the public could accept the use of GM bacteria to dye hair. We hoped that, with the insight we got from the public, we would be able to overcome some of the stigmas associated with GM cosmetics and might be able to market Cutiful effectively.

As it is very difficult to predict how the public would react to such an abstract concept, we decided to use a more open-ended method of investigation coupled with another sticker chart to gather some quantitative data. We decided to use semi- structured interviews to gather opinions, views and suggestions from the public at the stall, which were later analysed. During the interviews, depending how the individual felt or what ideas they had, the questions were adjusted accordingly.

From the semi-structured interviews and subsequent analysis, we were able to gauge how the public understood and regarded GMOs. We were surprised to see a lack of general understanding of biology, but we also found a high level of acceptance of this relatively new technology.

By analysing the data from the sticker chart as well as the subsequent interviews we found that if the person knew what GMOs were, they would have a quite a positive outlook on GMOs and synthetic biology. However, a number of people did not know what GMOs were and were hesitant to give an opinion. Upon further discussion, we found that people with some of the strongest opinions were those who learnt what GMOs were through GM foods. We believe this highlights the influence the media and other outlets of information have on public opinion, which can sometimes vehiculate and validate uninformed opinions to the public.

We also met members of the public who were not receptive to our idea or GMOs in general, and had a number of reasons as to why they though at such. Reflection on their comments showed a few common reasons as to why GM hair dyes may not be easy to convince the public to use. Some of the concerns the public had included:

Fig.8 Graph showing suggested improvements in current hair dyes, opinions measured in number of people. Data collected from opinion board, Fig.5.

When told they were already covered in bacteria in the form of their microbiome, the ‘non-receptive’ members of the public became hesitant, asked questions, or walked away. Suggesting that the public readily form opinions based on insufficient information and once those opinions have formed it can be quite difficult for them to change.

The most interesting idea we got from the public was that many of the individuals questioned were completely against GM foods, but simultaneously were unminding of putting GM bacteria in cosmetics onto their body. We found this fascinating, as this shows incongruence in public opinion: the risks of GM food and GM cosmetics are almost identical as both introduce genetically modified organisms to the human body, yet one is acceptable whilst the other is not. As this was found during the semi-structured interview, we further questioned as to why the individual thought this way. None of the members of the public could articulate their point clearly: we received varying ideas about things being ‘natural’, not going into their body, etc. but we found that the public had made a distinction between GM foods and GM cosmetics and considered one as harmful and the other as progressive, respectively.

We acknowledge the data we collected has an aspect of bias to it, since we were at a Science Community Festival, where the audience might be more receptive to new knowledge. Furthermore, when learning about GMOs, individuals are yet to develop their own informed opinion. The sticker chart format was also quite limited as it covered GMOs in general, and the offered pictorial graduations (faces representing very happy, happy, neutral, unhappy, very unhappy) do not allow a complex response from the person (e.g. being for GMOs in cosmetics but being opposed to GM foods). This is why it was very useful to have a semi-structured interview as well as the posters.

From the science community festival, we learnt what some of the public’s needs and demands were regarding hair dyes. We also learnt that the public was far more accepting of GM hair dyes than we anticipated, so it would not make sense to carry on pursuing public acceptance. We were tempted to carry out outreach programs to educate the public, but further discussion showed that we would just fall victim to the information deficit model as many scientists do. The information deficit model suggests that public scepticism/hostility is due to a lack of knowledge of the subject; this model of thinking has since been proven to be incorrect (Simis et al., 2016). Ultimately, we decided to look into the reason why we felt the need to convince the public of our GM product and why we had assumed that our product will automatically be rejected. Upon further research we found the term ‘Synbiophobiaphobia’, which was first coined by (Marris, 2015) and describes the ‘fear of the public's fear of synthetic biology’. We decided to pivot our human practices project into investigating how scientists perceive the public and trying to characterise synbiophobiaphobia within the scientific community..

Act III: The information defecit model and Synbiophobiaphobia - an investigation

In which we improve our vocabulary.

Synbiophobiaphobia describes the fear of public fear of synthetic biology. First mentioned by Marris (2015), as synthetic biology has developed, synbio has been recognised by many as having the potential to revolutionise society, to ‘heal us, heat [us] and feed us’ (Osborne, 2012).

Simultaneously, as the potential of synthetic biology is slowly being realised, the resolve to prevent public rejection has strengthened. The synthetic biology community (researchers, politicians, educators, etc.) are convinced that taking active steps to ensure that the public is ‘comfortable’ with synthetic biology will prevent public rejection. This is deemed crucial, as public rejection usually leads to stringent regulations and difficulty in applying research to society, ultimately slowing the progress of the field, as we have seen with GM foods. The effort to prevent public rejection has been spearheaded by activities heavily influenced by the information deficit model, where scientists inadvertently lecture the public on science. This model of thinking has been proven to be incorrect, yet it persists in the scientific community…

Much of the research exploring the interactions between the public and scientists have centred around researching and sometimes scrutinising the public. What does the public think? Why do they think the way they do? What can be done about this thinking? However, the interaction between the lay public and scientists is two-sided, and scientists should also be investigated to the same extent as the public. ‘Pro-science’ researchers are trying to explain the hostility towards GM by investigating the lay public, in the hopes that by understanding their perceptions and thought processes, something can be done to prevent hostility. It is apparent that scientists play as big a role in the hostility against GM as the lay public, but this is not reflected in the level of research gone into scientists.

Therefore, we looked at some of the literature into why the information deficit model persists in science. We also investigated how scientists perceive the public and how this perception can potentially lead to synbiophobiaphobia.

(Simis et al., 2016) explains in the ‘Lure of rationality’ that there are four main reasons as to why the information deficit model is still a common model of thinking in science and why it continues to influence science communications approaches.

First, she mentions that scientists assume that the public make decisions rationally, as rational thinking is deeply imbedded within the sciences. However, expecting the public to be able to carefully weigh out the positives and negatives of complex issues surrounding science and research is unrealistic. The public have shown that use heuristics and schemas to make sense of the entangled web of ethical, legal and social issues surrounding science. If the public actually made decisions/ formed opinions on GM based on rational reasoning, then the information deficit model would hold true, as all the public need is information to make an opinion, but this is not the case. She also mentions that scientists lack formal training in communicating with the public. Examination of course requirements show that very few programs incorporate public communications. This results in whole cohorts of scientist that do not understand how the public form opinions thus relying on their intuition, which usually results on them using the information deficit model.

(Simis et al., 2016) goes onto say that some scientists make a distinction between themselves and the public. Citing previous work such as (Besley and Tanner, 2011), (Simis et al., 2016) mentions that some scientists see the public as an ignorant, homogenous group. She further investigated this by analysing responses to the question posed to scientists: ‘‘what comes to mind when you hear the words, the public?’’ and found that 75% of scientists conceptualised the public as an ‘other’. There were nuances in their responses, as some considered the public as ‘neutral other’, whilst others considered the public as a ‘non-scientific other’. Critically, some scientists carried out outreach work and understood that the term ‘public’ is ‘outdated and not useful, unless given more context’, showing that meaningful interaction with the public can grant proper appreciation of the world outside of science.

Finally, (Simis et al., 2016) mentions that the information deficit model is popular amongst policy makers because of its simplicity. The information deficit model identifies a comprehensible problem i.e. ‘ignorance’ and offers a straightforward answer i.e. education. As tackling the problem of ‘ignorance’ through education and outreach is far easier than tackling more complicated issues such as public values, beliefs etc. thus, the information deficit model remains to justify such policies (Simis et al., 2016).

Another paper by (Suldovsky, 2016) outlines more potential reasons as to why the information deficit model persists. She mentions that the purpose of science communication is to ‘improve the relationship between science and society and promote science within the public sphere’. However, even though the purpose of science communication is to ‘nurture a relationship’ between science and the lay public, the communication between the two is unidirectional, where science ‘stands to improve society’ but not vice versa. She argues that as long as the purpose of science communication is to ‘resolve the problematic gap’ between the public and science through monologues to the public, the deficit model will persist. This is because if scientists recognise that there is a rift between science and the lay public, but only scientists dominate the discussions in rectifying the situation by lecturing the lay public, then it is implied that the lay public is the problem or are deficient is some manner (Suldovsky, 2016).

(Suldovsky, 2016) suggests that this unidirectional communication is due to the epistemic authority that scientists perceive they possess. Epistemic authority is where an individual relies on a source in an attempt to acquire knowledge and assumes that the source is correct; sources being given epistemic authority by an individual is context specific e.g. a priest being given authority in matters of religion. The fact that scientists (communicators) feel they have such authority results in a fashion of communication that is ‘top-down … where knowledge trickles down from an epistemic authority (scientists) to a knowledge-deficient audience’. This implies an information deficit model; however, this is only a problem when the lay public don’t give scientists the epistemic authority scientists believe they have. This ultimately results in unidirectional science communications efforts that fall on deaf ears (Suldovsky, 2016).

It is apparent that the information deficit model is deeply imbedded in the minds of scientists, without them even knowing it. Quantitative research asking scientist ‘How much of a problem is the public [not knowing] much about science for science in general?’ 84.9% responded as this being a major problem (Besley and Nisbet, 2013). This shows that the scientists feel that the lack of scientific literacy within the public is a major roadblock in the progression of science. Given the assumption made by scientists that the public do not know enough science, it is fair to assume that scientists involved in synthetic biology will think the same. As synthetic biology is a discipline within science that has the sole purpose of producing products/services for the public, it is imperative that the interaction between synthetic biologists and the public is well understood.

(Marris, 2015) corroborates the findings of (Besley and Nisbet, 2013) and mentions that ‘scientific institutions and … government bodies have identified public attitudes to synthetic biology as an obstruction to the field’. It is clear that some scientists assume that the public will fear/reject synthetic biology based on the assumption that the lay public is not educated enough regarding GM (i.e. experience synbiophobiaphobia). This fear of public rejection was first mentioned by Marris, (2015) and suggests that the way in which scientists perceive the public may cause this sweeping assumption, which ultimately leads to science communication/public outreach programs heavily influenced by the information deficit model.

Therefore, we decided to investigate the scientists that surrounded us in the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology and see for ourselves the way in which scientists perceive the public and how Synbiophobiaphobia manifests itself.

Act IV: Scientific Interviews

In which we talk to people about fear, other people, and whether it’s real or not.

Once we had determined that the public was more comfortable with GM cosmetics than we had anticipated, we decided to further investigate synbiophobiaphobia; more specifically how scientists perceive the public and potentially investigate how synbiophobiaphobia manifests itself within the scientific community. To determine how active researchers, perceive and interact with the public, we decided to carry out more semi-structured interviews, which we then later transcribed and analysed.

We interviewed five individuals (see appendix) who had varying roles in the MIB. We later categorised them into two groups: one group consisted of scientists who engaged with the public as part of their job, whereas the other group did not engage with the public as often. The transcripts were first analysed for recurring themes and quotes that could be used in our analysis. The quotes were then generally categorized in a manner that would allow us to make coherent points in our write-up. Thereafter, the transcripts we revisited to look for specific quotations to be used in the write up. Finally, the themes and quotations were brought together to produce the following analysis.

As we were trying to determine the nature of synbiophobiaphobia, our questions centred around their job, how they engage with the public (if at all) and how they think the public affects their research. Of course, as with any other semi-structured interview, the questions varied depending on the responses received.

From the analysis of the interviews we conducted we found that some of the scientists overestimate the extent to which the public understands Biology, even the simplest of concepts from their academic perspective. This leads to them having an optimistic perception of the public and how they might interact and accept scientific research. On the other hand, the scientists that interact very little with the lay public seem to underestimate the knowledge the public have and their ability to have multiple opinions, depending on the application of GM. In this case, the scientists do show some consideration to public opinion to GM, but it remains just a consideration and doesn’t influence their research. Our preliminary research suggests that there is little evidence for Synbiophobiaphobia with the MIB.

The researchers that had extensive association with the public understood and could articulate the interactions scientists have with the lay public. They also described these interactions and perceptions holistically, taking into account the various sub-sections of the public and their reasoning for their respective opinions.

Communication was a consistent theme mentioned by most of the scientists. One mentioned that scientists should ‘listen to the public to make sure that [they] are aware of perceptions and counteract any misinformation, before it becomes larger than it should be’, suggesting a primary aim of interaction with the public is to counteract misinformation. One scientist went on to say that it is a scientist’s ‘duty’ to ‘counteract [the] narrative from sensationalists’. This shows that some of the scientists understand that there is a need to counteract anti-GMO narratives, so that the public can make unbiased opinions. However, the fact that only ’60-70 people’ volunteer every year and that out of ‘all the institutions... [this is] the greatest proportion’, suggests that not all scientists share this sentiment.

One interviewee went on to tell us that the public do not want to have high-level Biology ‘shoved down their throats’ but would appreciate some contextualisation of research, which can be found in lay descriptions in some papers. This was an idea suggested by a scientist who had interacted with the public, which could be used in response to the idea held by some scientists that the public ‘don’t understand’ so cannot be relied upon to make decisions regarding how Science should move forward.

One interviewee went on to tell us that the public do not want to have high-level Biology ‘shoved down their throats’ but would appreciate some contextualisation of research, which can be found in lay descriptions in some papers. This was an idea suggested by a scientist who had interacted with the public, which could be used in response to the idea held by some scientists that the public 'don't undestand' so cannot be replied upon to make decisions regarding how science should move forward.

However, the scientists that volunteered to do outreach were not looking to ‘inform their research when they [approach] the public’, which highlights a fundamental problem with interaction between scientists and the lay public. Where there is communication between science and society, seldom is it a dialogue; people of the scientific community often find themselves lecturing the public about science rather than taking their feedback. Even the UK government has taken notice and has developed the Science Wise programme, which assists dialogue between scientists and policy makers to ensure that the public is actively involved (Office of Science, 2002).

When questioned about what the public should gain from outreach, one scientist mentioned that ‘[the] primary focus [of the outreach he did] were the researchers in the institute’ and giving them the ‘opportunity [to] get out and talk to the public about their research’. So, it seems that the outreach that is done is not focused on informing the public about research or getting them involved with science, but rather providing an interface for scientists to talk to the public. The main focus ‘is [not] the participants, they are more secondary outcomes...if the outcome is [that] they now understand a bit more about a particular research project that's good, if the outcome is they learn that science is really boring ... that’s also good’. We believe that it is important that scientists engage with the public, in any form that is convenient, but we think that a more focused, public-centred form of outreach would go a long way in encouraging the public to help shape the future of science and research.

Even though the public is not as involved in decision making and directing science as it should be, the outreach done by scientists does seems to have benefits for both the public and scientists. From this interaction with the scientists, the public understand that scientists ‘don’t have all the answers’. This may seem counterintuitive as surely a member of the public realising that scientists are not as knowledgeable as they thought, would create even more distrust. But one scientist mentioned that it was ‘nice’ to see the public understand that scientists don’t have all the answers, suggesting that explaining that ‘they are also trying to figure things out’ humanises scientists in the eyes of the public.

Scientists that have interacted with the public for a long time also mentioned that the public have grown to be more understanding of GM over the years and understand that it is ‘a more precise science than it used to be’. However, one did concede that she might only think this as someone inside the scientific community that isn’t exposed to all factions of society. In an outreach program she was involved in she was surprised to see that ‘synbio [came] up favourably, people [didn’t] like the idea of harsh chemicals, they quite [liked] it being extracted naturally, and didn’t seem to mind the biosynthetic route’. Our findings at the Science festival, perfectly align with hers that the public don’t seem to mind GM, when it is framed as a natural alternative to harsh chemicals.

We found that even with years of public engagement scientists find it difficult to determine the extent to which biology is understood by the lay public. Many assumed that the public would not know about the microbiome on the hair, but we found a fair number of the lay public were aware of the fact that they are covered in bacteria. Nearly all of the scientists interviewed were not surprised by the fact that many people at the science festival were comfortable with putting GM bacteria on their hair. This suggests that the idea that scientists assume the public will reject most GM research is a little more complicated than as described by Synbiophobiaphobia. All of the scientists that had dealings with the public understand that the public can have quite nuanced opinions depending on application of GM and explained that the public cannot be viewed as a single entity and threat to science, as described by some policy makers, as mentioned by (Marris, 2015).

The remaining scientists that had been interviewed had limited interaction with the lay public, and most had never presented their work to a non-scientific audience. We found that many scientists found it unnecessary, and even inappropriate to share their research with the public, even though most of them felt that public interest influences research heavily and that there is a lack of communication between scientists and the lay public.

When questioned regarding how scientists should interact with the public, specifically to public backlash towards GMOs, one scientist mentioned that her ‘priority is research … [she] would not do it [herself]’. We believe that even though there are experienced sociologists and dedicated public engagement officers, that scientists should feel the importance of their contribution in balancing out anti-GMO narratives. If all scientists saw it their ‘duty’, as mentioned by another scientist, then the perception of GMOs by some sections of society would be better. However, one scientist mentioned that the public’s ignorance of GMOs was not imputable to researchers, and that it is the ‘shortcoming of the education system’. He even exaggerated the idea that movies can influence GMO perception of the public. Granted, there are many potential channels of information for the public to acquire knowledge about synthetic biology; we believe scientists should establish a strong presence on those channels, to ensure that all the information the public receive is factual.

Moreover, the public remained ‘just’ a consideration in most of the scientists’ research, despite their acknowledgement that scientists can no longer ‘sit in their ivory towers’ saying: ‘trust us, we are the experts’. More than one scientist said that there is not enough communication between the public and scientists, and most mentioned, in some way or another, that science should put more effort into advertising synthetic biology. They also mentioned that a lot of the science that is done is shaped by societal need, for example medicine, fuels, etc... So, one would think that given the influence the public has on science, there would be a fair amount of dialogue between scientists and the public. However, we found that this is not the case: most of the scientists had never presented their work in a professional setting outside the scientific community. When questioned about how their research may influence society, one scientist answered that ‘it won’t’. She explains that only ‘1% of [the research they] do will in all the labs will ever go to the next stage’. This suggests a mentality where the scientists feel that their research does not need to be presented to the public, as the public will most likely never see the fruits of their work.

Ultimately, All the scientists interviewed acknowledged that ‘the communication is not there’ and that ‘science as a whole probably does a bad job communicating [with the public]’, but very few of the scientists interviewed directly interact with the public on a regular basis. Given that fact that most research is application orientated, where the sole beneficiary is society at large, the lack of input from the lay public into research is surprising. Even though we acknowledge that the lay public cannot be relied upon to direct scientific research, we believe that the public should be given to means to become directly involved in decision-making in this field. Moreover, from the analysis of the interviews we found that most scientists do not feel the need for public input into scientific research and believe that, as most science stays in the lab, presenting to the public is unnecessary. Finally, we found that scientists are actually not scared of public rejection nor are they worried about public rejection as mentioned by Synbiophobiaphobia, but rather treat the public as just a consideration in their research.

Act V: Conversations with Experts

In which practical questions are asked and things get hairy rather quickly.

Throughout our project we have had the opportunity to talk to many specialists in their respective fields. We talked to trichologists, barbers, as well as the author of a paper upon which we based our decapeptide constructs (Cruz et al., 2017). Talking to these specialists helped us develop our project, and consider our product, Cutiful, under new aspects...

We first contacted the Institute of Trichologists, who specialise in hair and scalp treatment and diagnosis. We had the opportunity to talk to one of their specialists, Liam Byrne, who is also a governor on the board at the Institute of Trichologists. He explained to us the many kinds of chemicals that are present in hair dyes, such as PPD and other amine derivatives. We had already recognised these chemicals in our preliminary research of hair dyes and explained that our product will be free of these harsh chemical, which was news he welcomed. He then went on to mention how important allergy testing is when using novel hair dyes, but some hair salons don’t do allergy tests on their customers due to the lack of convenience in carrying out these tests. He also said that the public are not aware of the risks involved and this leads many incidents of negative reactions to hair dyes every year.

Mr. Byrne also made us consider the practicalities involved with using a live culture of bacteria on hair. He mentioned that hair on an average person’s head will be exposed to many kinds of environmental pressure, which would usually kill most bacteria, such as high chlorine, and detergent exposure (in shampoos). Bearing this in mind, we conducted experiments to see how resistant the lab strains of E. coli were to these pressures. We found that. E. coli bacteria can survive and in most cases, express proteins, in the above mentioned conditions.

We also had the opportunity to talk to Seamus McCrory, who owns McCrory Hair. We found the feedback from Seamus extremely beneficial as it gave us insight into how stylists operate in a salon and potentially how hairdressers may perceive and use our product. He mentioned that some hairdressers will be intrigued with the idea of using bacteria to dye hair, as he was, whereas some stylists may be put off by the idea, especially if we try to explain a lot of the science behind our product whilst marketing. This made us consider how we would approach professionals and how we can make our product suitable to their needs. We are confident that the use of our product will not be any more complicated than hair dyes currently on the market – in fact, Cutiful should be simple enough as to become a DIY dye!

Seamus also mentioned that a key selling point of commercial hair dyes is their variety; consumers have a choice of hundreds of shades and colours to dye their hair. For our product to truly establish itself in the market, it must also give consumers a range of choices. As our initial project focused on developing three main colours i.e. blue, red and green, we decided we also needed to develop a larger colour palette. We decided to make co-cultures to see if by mixing the colours we have can we cater to demands of the public. We found that the co-cultures worked extremely well, and we have shown that by mixing bacteria expressing different coloured proteins the colours can mix to make a range of colours (also see Figure d in appendix).

Mr. McCrory also talked extensively about allergens and their potential risk to both the customer as well as the stylist. Again, the fact that many hair salons don’t carry out allergy tests came up, this time from an industry expert who has seen first-hand the consequences of allergic reactions. Mr. McCrory suggested that the fault is imputable to both customers, who usually want quick, same-day application of dyes, and stylists who want to cater to these needs. After our interactions with the specialists, we understand that we need to develop a simple and effective allergy test, which would leave no reason to risk an allergic reaction. We have decided to develop a matrix-based plaster system, which will suspend the proteins in Cutiful and expose them to the skin to potentially induce an immune response. These plasters will come with our Cutiful product, and customers will be strongly advised to test themselves before any application.

We were also fortunate enough to meet with Dr A. Cavaco-Paulo, co-author on the (Cruz et al., 2017), at the Newcastle Designer Biology 2019 Conference. He was interested in how we would integrate the decapeptides that were on his paper into our project. He was generous enough to give us some advice into how peptide expression works in bacteria, which we then used to re-design some of our constructs. He mentioned that our constructs will not be expressed in E. coli because the cellular machinery involved in DNA expression may not be able to interact and express such a small gene. In the original paper the peptides they used were synthesised rather than expressed in bacteria (Cruz et al., 2017). We wanted to confirm if bacteria actually cannot express such small genes. However, we also took his advice on board and re-designed some of our constructs (Repair Page, Act III: Expression).

Epilogue: Conclusion

In which we like to think it’s not the end

In conclusion, our Human Practices has been quite a journey. We believe we have developed a SynBio product that not only caters to an urgent need in the hair care market, but also acknowledges and integrates the needs of the public. We have made our product safer, more affordable and more convenient, all at the request of the public. We now realise that there is a significant difference in what the public want and what developers feel the public want; we are thankful that we were able to make such an integrated product with the help of the public.

Our perception of the public has also changed, and we recognise that the public is not just one entity, determined to stop GM research. In fact, the ‘public’ is composed of many different factions, each with their own nuanced opinions regarding GM. Our Human Practices story went from overcoming public rejection to understanding the interaction and perception of scientists with the public, specifically to see evidence for synbiophobiaphobia.

Even though there is a strong case for synbiophobiaphobia, it does go a long way in explaining the peculiar interaction of scientists with the public, we believe that this does not fully explain the way in which scientists interact with the public. Our interviews showed very little evidence of fear of public rejection; the scientists acknowledged that there is not enough communication and that public interests shape research, however, they showed that the public is just a consideration in their research and that (according to some) the public cannot be relied upon to make decisions in research. This is a mentality that needs to be overcome to truly allow productive cooperation between scientist and the public.

As scientist, it is quite possible we have let the scientists off too easily and criticized the public far too harshly. If this is the case, it only highlights the need for extensive cooperation between scientists, sociologists and the lay public to truly grasp a holistic understanding of the dynamic interactions between all sides.

(Perhaps, this could be an idea for another iGEM team to pick up for their Human practices project...)