Abstract
We analyzed stable patients’ views regarding synthetic biology in general, the medical application of synthetic biology, and their potential participation in trials of synthetic biology in particular. The aim of the study was to find out whether patients’ views and preferences change after receiving more detailed information about synthetic biology and its clinical applications. The qualitative study was carried out with a purposive sample of 36 stable patients, who suffered from diabetes or gout. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated and fully anonymized. Thematic analysis was applied in order to examine stable patients’ attitudes towards synthetic biology, its medical application, and their participation in trials. When patients were asked about synthetic biology in general, most of them were anxious that something uncontrollable could be created. After a concrete example of possible future treatment options, patients started to see synthetic biology in a more positive way. Our study constitutes an important first empirical insight into stable patients’ views on synthetic biology and into the kind of fears triggered by the term “synthetic biology.” Our results show that clear and concrete information can change patients’ initial negative feelings towards synthetic biology. Information should thus be transmitted with great accuracy and transparency in order to reduce irrational fears of patients and to minimize the risk that researchers present facts too positively for the purposes of persuading patients to participate in clinical trials. Potential participants need to be adequately informed in order to be able to autonomously decide whether to participate in human subject research involving synthetic biology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ammann, D. (2003). Schweizerische Arbeitsgruppe Gentechnologie SAG, Fact Sheet: Moratorien und Verbote weltweit, SAG Geschäftsstelle 2003. http://gentechfrei.ch/images/stories/pdfs/papiere/fs_moratorien.pdf. Accessed 06 May 2015.
Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H., Lidz, C. W., Benson, P., & Winslade, W. (1987). False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report, 17(2), 20–24.
Ausländer, S., & Fussenegger, M. (2014). Synthetic biology: Toehold gene switches make big footprints. Nature, 516(7531), 333–334.
Balmer, A., Martin, P. (2008). Syntetic biology: Social and ethical challenges. Institute of Science and Society, University of Nottingham, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Page 3. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:131890&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF. Accessed 03 April 2015.
Beachy, R. N. (1999). Facing fear of biotechnology. Science, 285(5426), 335.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bromwich, D., & Rid, A. (2015). Can informed consent to research be adapted to risk? Journal of Medical Ethics, 41, 521–528.
Brumfiel, G. (2003). Nanotechnology: A little knowledge. Nature, 424(6946), 246–248.
Chen, J. H., Lan, J. L., Cheng, C. F., Liang, W. M., Lin, H. Y., Tsay, G. J., et al. (2015). Effect of urate-lowering therapy on the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in patients with gout: a case-matched cohort study. The Journal of Rheumatology, 42(9), 1694–1701.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader ISBN 978-0-06-189990-4. http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/116954/06b89c8343b30b05a99d5723277c39f8.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 06 July 2015.
Crowne, D. P. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
Dresser, R. (2009). First-in-human trial participants: Not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 37(1), 38–50.
Ehrbar, M., Schoenmakers, R., Christen, E. H., Fussenegger, M., & Weber, W. (2008). Drug-sensing hydrogels for the inducible release of biopharmaceuticals. Nature Materials, 7(10), 800–804.
Elger, B. S. (2005). Attitudes of future lawyers and psychologists to the use of genetic testing for criminal behaviour. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14, 329–345.
Elger, B. S., & Harding, T. W. (2004). Teaching changes attitudes to genetic testing for aggressive behaviour. Medical Law International, 6, 1–19.
Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, A. P. (2011). Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(19), 1436–1443.
Franco, O. H., Steyerberg, E. W., Hu, F. B., Mackenbach, J., & Nusselder, W. (2007). Associations of diabetes mellitus with total life expectancy and life expectancy with and without cardiovascular disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(11), 1145–1151.
Gott, M., Ingleton, C., Bennett, M. I., & Gardiner, C. (2011). Transitions to palliative care in acute hospitals in England: Qualitative study. BMJ, 1, 42–48.
Kemmer, C., Gitzinger, M., Daoud-El Baba, M., Djonov, V., Stelling, J., & Fussenegger, M. (2010). Self-sufficient control of urate homeostasis in mice by a synthetic circuit. Nature Biotechnology, 28(4), 355–360.
Kronberger, N., Holtz, P., Kerbe, W., Strasser, E., & Wagner, W. (2009). Communicating synthetic biology: From the lab via the media to the broader public. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3(1–4), 19–26.
Link, H. J. (2013). Playing God and the intrinsic value of life: Moral problems for synthetic biology? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 435–448.
Murren, J. R., Di Stasio, S. A., Lorico, A., McKeon, A., Zuhowski, E. G., Egorin, M. J., et al. (2000). Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of novobiocin in combination with VP-16 in patients with refractory malignancies. Cancer Journal, 6(4), 256–265.
Newson, A. J. (2011). Current ethical issues in synthetic biology: Where should we go from here? Accountability in Research, 18(3), 181–193.
Ong, L. M. L., Vissera, M. R. M., Lammesb, F. B., & de Haesa, J. C. J. M. (2000). Doctor–patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 41(2), 145–156.
Pruss, S. (2014). Klares Ja für PID: Referendum angekündigt. Tagesanzeiger. 14 June 2015. http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/abstimmungsresultate/Klares-Ja-fuer-PID–Referendum-angekuendigt/story/12637158. Accessed 09 June 2015.
Ruder, W. C., Lu, T., & Collins, J. J. (2011). Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science, 333(6047), 1248–1252.
Satalkar, P., Elger, B. S., Shaw, D. (2016). Naming it ‘nano’: Expert views on ‘nano’ terminology in informed consent forms of first-in-human nanomedicine trials. Nanomedicine (Lond). [Epub ahead of print].
Schmid-Petri, H., Knocks, S., Sager, P., Adam, S. (2014). Synthetische Biologie in der Gesellschaft: Eine neue Technologie in der öffentlichen Diskussion. Abschlussbericht TA-SWISS (Hrsg.) Bern 2014. German. https://www.taswiss.ch/?redirect=getfile.php&cmd[getfile][uid]=2778. Accessed 04 May 2015.
Schmidt, M., Torgersen, H., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Kelle, A., Deplazes, A., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2008). SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: Online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 2(1–2), 7–17.
Shaw, D., & Elger, B. (2014). Putting patients on research ethics committees. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(8), 304–307.
Spaemann, R. (2001). Grenzen zur ethischen Dimension des Handelns. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Torgersen, H. (2009). Synthetic biology in society: Learning from past experience? Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3, 9–17.
Wilhelm, K., Beck, L., & Mikat, P. (1998). Lexikon der Bioethik 1 (Vol. 1, p. 292). Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Xie, M., & Fussenegger, M. (2015). Mammalian designer cells: Engineering principles and biomedical applications. Biotechnology Journal, 347(4), 284–287.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Anna Genske for developing and adapting the interview guide. Furthermore, we would like to thank Marianne Weber for transcribing and translating the interviews with the 36 gout and diabetes patients.
Funding
The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [grant no. PDFMP3_137194/1].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Hypothetical Example for Gout Patients
I will guide you into Mr. Müller’s world in the year 2025. Mr. Müller suffers, as you, from gout, but he is not taking any drugs. He needs to go rarely to his GP to get his uric acid level controlled. Mr. Müller has a capsule implanted under his skin. This capsule contains human cells. These cells are from Mr. Müller himself. They were removed and modified in the laboratory.
These modified cells from Mr. Müller are able to produce a certain protein that removes the surplus uric acid in the blood. Additionally, a sensor was integrated that constantly measures the uric acid levels in the blood. If it [uric acid level] increases too strongly, the protein production is stimulated. She [cell] produces more of the uric acid degrading protein. Mr. Müller notices nothing of this. Everything happens automatically and alone.
Hypothetical Example for Diabetes Patients
I will guide you into Mr. Müller’s world in the year 2025. Mr. Müller suffers, as you, from diabetes. Mr. Müller has a capsule implanted under his skin. This capsule contains human cells. These cells are from Mr. Müller himself. They were removed and modified in the laboratory.
These modified cells from Mr. Müller are able to produce a certain substance that stimulates the insulin production in the body and decreases the blood sugar concentration. Mr. Müller is wearing a plaster with incorporated LED-lamps on his skin. After food intake, Mr. Müller switches the LED-lamps on via touch of a button. The light ensures that the substance gets produced in the cells and distributed in the blood.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rakic, M., Wienand, I., Shaw, D. et al. Autonomy and Fear of Synthetic Biology: How Can Patients’ Autonomy Be Enhanced in the Field of Synthetic Biology? A Qualitative Study with Stable Patients. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 375–388 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9786-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9786-x