Open AccessThe rose and the name: the unresolved debate on biotechnological terms
Author(s) -
Domínguez Martí,
Peretó Juli,
Porcar Manuel
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
microbial biotechnology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.287
H-Index - 74
ISSN - 1751-7915
DOI - 10.1111/1751-7915.13522
Subject(s) - synthetic biology , neologism , constructive , perception , term (time) , scientific consensus , biology , ecology , computer science , philosophy , computational biology , neuroscience , physics , linguistics , process (computing) , quantum mechanics , operating system , climate change , global warming
Summary The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019, EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology , constructive biology , natural engineering , synthetic genomics and biological engineering . This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.