Learn to love our ‘monsters’

September 22, 2021

Sci-fi and fantasy stories are often filled with scientists who go too far. The most enduring trope for this kind of pride is “Frankenstein”. It is both the best-known and the most misunderstood monster story.

Bruno Latour, a renowned sociologist of science, wrote that the terror of this tale is not the act of creation; it is the consequence of abandonment. He stresses that all new technologies are imperfect and need sustained care to improve them. It’s not that Dr. Frankenstein went too far – he didn’t go far enough.

The horror of Frankenstein’s story was neglect. Had the infamous scientist given responsible care to its creation, this story could have been a story of triumph instead of terror. In the real world, bio-foundry facilities are engineering organizations capable of synthesizing products ranging from cosmetics to fertilizers. Do their creators reflect on the care they take in their innovation? Assistant Professor Emma Frow studies the practice of care and governance in a rapidly changing industry that is literally turning life into engineering. Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Download the full image

“Latour calls on scientists and engineers to cultivate a different kind of relationship with their work,” said emma frowns, assistant professor at the Ira A. Fulton Engineering Schools and the College of World Futures at Arizona State University. “The word ‘care’ applies here, but more in the sense of governance than as something emotional. How do you “take care” of your ideas and innovations once they leave the lab and enter the complex and dynamic world we live in? ”

Frow says parenting can offer a good analogy: it’s a long-term project. How to best engage? When are you backing up? What end are you looking for? She admits that this relational mindset is not always visible in science, where the dominant perspective of praxis is the disinterested revelation of objective truth.

“And yet, recent years have shown more and more clearly that science and engineering are complex endeavors that involve choices and debates,” she said. “Recognizing this is really important. It gives us the opportunity to examine what we do and how we do it in order to improve our work.

Frow arrived at ASU in 2015 as a social scientist and biochemist with a long-standing interest in synthetic biology. It did so because of the university’s reputation for fostering innovation with societal relevance. She says this mission makes ASU a leading institution for the study of the real practice of science and engineering from several perspectives, including attitudes towards responsibility and care.

Frow believes that scientists and engineers in the field of synthetic biology are particularly open to discussing issues of care and responsibility in their work. She therefore continues these conversations in a set of emerging installations called biofounderies.

“Biofounders are trying to develop new technologies and new business models for high throughput bioproduction,” she said. “These are spaces of great innovation, which means they also make all kinds of design choices that could prove to be very important for the future of biotech and society. I think it is important to be attentive to what is happening in these sites and also to promote lively, interdisciplinary exchanges and active reflection on the futures that are emerging in these facilities.

The exploration of care and governance in the context of the emerging biofoundry industry is at the center of the research Frow is conducting in the School of Biological Engineering and Health Systems, one of the Seven Fulton Schools, as well as ASU School for the future of innovation in society. His pioneering efforts resulted in him securing a 2021 National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) Price.

The CAREER Award recognition is reserved for young researchers who show the potential to be academic models and to advance the missions of their organizations. The winners receive approximately half a million dollars over five years to continue their highlighted research.

Frow’s project has three components. The first is the qualitative ethnographic study of the work in progress within the biofoundery facilities.

“I will be spending at least three months at each of the two sites,” she said. “One is a commercial establishment on the east coast and the other is an academic establishment on the west coast. I will also be doing shorter visits to several other biofounderies across the country. And I’ll be interviewing people working in many different roles on each of these sites.

The second part of the project will study the broader political economy in which biofounders operate. This aspect involves interviews with investors, regulators and other players in related fields such as industrial chemistry, pharmaceuticals and genetic engineering.

“Those first two parts are absolutely doable,” Frow said. “They will tell us a lot about contemporary biofounderies. But the third part of this project is more experimental. It will build on all the fieldwork to design interventions or tools that can help practitioners familiarize themselves with care and accountability policies, and shape the governance of these foundries.

She says it will be an interdisciplinary effort involving scientists and engineers, but also sociologists, humanists, designers and even science fiction writers. There is a lot of speculation about the future of bioengineering, but the need for a culture of engagement seems clear.

“As Latour writes, how do you actually care or love the monsters you create?” said Frow. “How do you engage with your innovations in order to tackle the problems that you did not anticipate and, in the end, to build a better future? ”