↓ Skip to main content

Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40504-018-0082-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Afke Wieke Betten, Virgil Rerimassie, Jacqueline E. W. Broerse, Dirk Stemerding, Frank Kupper

Abstract

The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 22%
Philosophy 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 23 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,884,775
of 24,466,750 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#71
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,328
of 341,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,466,750 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.