How to really deliver on science for the public good

Scientists and research bodies routinely promise their work will benefit humanity. But new research from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology argues that it often fails to deliver in practice and pins down exactly why.  

The research, published in the journal Minerva, was co-authored by Kelly Hamilton, Kelby Francisca, Annie Sandrussi and Wendy Rogers. It argues that there are two common ways science tries to serve the public good and both are flawed.   

The first approach chases the biggest benefit for the most people yet in practice favours those who already have power or money.   

‘Take the COVID vaccines as an example,’ says Professor Rogers. ‘They were largely developed with public funding but rolled out fastest to wealthiest nations while 80 percent of the world’s population waited months or longer for access.’  

The second approach involves consulting the public in order to agree on what ‘good’ looks like.  While potentially more inclusive, the researchers found these consultations can be stacked from the start.  A major UK government roadmap for synthetic biology was said to reflect broad public input but industry figures and senior scientists pursued priorities that chased a £1 billion market, with ethical and social concerns pushed to the margins.  

‘There are lessons for Australia here as we work towards building a national strategy for synthetic biology and biomanufacturing,’ says Professor Rogers.  

The researchers propose treating the public as part of the scientific process from day one, not as an audience it reports back to. 

They cite the standout example of a project in Kenya, where conservationists and local farmers worked together to stop elephants raiding crops. They did this by exploiting elephants’ natural fear of bees. It succeeded because farmers helped design and run it from the outset, rather than having the solution handed to them. The approach has since spread to other countries. 

The current dominance of market-oriented research practices rewards competition for funding and marketable outputs, potentially sub- ordinating scientific aims to commercial imperatives rather than communal wellbeing,’ the authors say. 

‘We propose a conception that has the potential to transform science by prioritising relationships, values, and practices that enable both science and communities to flourish together, realising the common good,’ the paper concludes.