Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Acceptance of Molecular Robots

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Molecular Robotics

  • 341 Accesses

Abstract

Molecular robotics is an emerging technology that has the potential to significantly impact society. To promote beneficial research on molecular robotics, careful consideration must be made from the viewpoint of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). This chapter presents an overview and background of ELSIs in molecular robotics, with particular focus on discussions and practices concerning ELSIs in ongoing research. Lessons learned from previous cases provide direction for considering the ELSIs of molecular robotics, and examining such guidance highlights a starting point for discussing the broad impacts of molecular robotics that need to be communicated to society in the future. To that purpose, this chapter focuses on cases of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and synthetic biology as essential references for examining the ELSIs of molecular robotics from the perspective of responsible research and innovation (RRI).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, a technology assessment on the social aspects of biotechnology was conducted by the research group SOKENDAI in 2014 [29].

  2. 2.

    A consensus conference led by the Hokkaido government was held as an example of a dialogue on GMOs in Japan. In these discussions, many issues similar to those of “GM Nation?” were raised [30].

  3. 3.

    This is a joint statement by six academic societies: the Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists, the Japanese Society of Agricultural Chemistry, the Japanese Society of Breeding Science, the Japanese Society for Plant Cell and Molecular Biology, the Horticultural Society of Japan, and the Japanese Society for Plant Chemical Regulation: https://jspp.org/16appeal/teigen2005.html. (Access to this site is broken as of May 2018. However, you can read it by entering the URL into the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive.) In addition, before this joint proposal by the six societies, there had been efforts such as a statement by the Japanese Society for Plant Arrangement and speech activities on blogs by individual researchers. However, such systematic social communication as the six societies’ joint proposal was exceptional.

  4. 4.

    The peak of media coverage was around 2000, when news focused on the anxiety and risks surrounding food use [22].

  5. 5.

    Looking beyond Japan, the debate over GMOs has often been discussed in a positive tone in the context of medical and industrial applications, whereas in food use it has been discussed in a negative tone, especially in Europe [31,32,33,34].

  6. 6.

    It should be noted that the discussion around synthetic biology is often conducted with GMOs as a reference point, and that there are many common issues between the two fields.

  7. 7.

    The “Compensation System for Clinical Research on Regenerative Medicine,” which the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine is conducting jointly with Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., will go further than the usual insurance for clinical research to cover cases in which doctors and medical institutions are not legally liable for compensation, and will also cover compensation for patients, which is not provided for in the Law for Securing the Safety of Regenerative Medicine: http://www.mskhoken.com/dantai/jsrm/index.html (last accessed February 17, 2018).

  8. 8.

    When researchers participate in communication and information sharing, it is especially important to improve the environment in terms of time, place, and evaluation system, and to give consideration to the burden that researchers have and to provide institutional support [35]. In the case of the medical field, if some exaggeration is included in the press release issued by the researcher or research institute, the media coverage will also include exaggeration to a large extent. On the other hand, if the press release is written in a restrained manner, the ratio of exaggeration in the media report is reduced to about one-fifth [36]. It is necessary to take this dynamic into account in communication activities.

  9. 9.

    The description is based on the discussion in the Joint Workshop on Molecular Robotics/JST Molecular Robot Ethics held on January 22, 2017 and February 11, 2017.

  10. 10.

    RRI has been described thus: “RRI stands for care for the future through the collective management of science and innovation in the present” [37].

  11. 11.

    A situation in which researchers do not know much about or are indifferent to the policy foundations, institutional conditions, or socially relevant incidents surrounding their field requires monitoring and educational response within the academic community. For example, in the field of regenerative medicine, a total of 27.9% of researchers answered “I have heard of it, but I do not know the outline” or “I do not know it at all” when asked about the three regenerative medicine laws, which are the institutional basis for the field. In addition, 38.4% of respondents answered that they “did not know” about the stem cell administration case. Researchers have argued for the importance of countermeasures against this situation [27].

References

  1. Development of molecular robots equipped with sensors and intelligence. Mar 31, 2017. https://en.molecular-robotics.org/

  2. Molecular Robot Ethics Site (Mar 31, 2020). https://molecular-robot-ethics.org/en/

  3. Socio-technical approach to molecular robotics from the viewpoints of legality, ethics, economics and education (Mar 31, 2017). https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/hite/en/community/project000206.html

  4. Co-creation of Molecular Robotics ELSI and Real-time Technology Assessment Research (Mar 31, 2021). https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/hite/en/community/project000291.html

  5. Co-Creation and Communication for Real-Time Technology Assessment (CoRTTA) on Information Technology and Molecular Robotics (Mar 31, 2021). https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/hite/en/community/project000290.html

  6. Biomolecular robotics, under development and discussion (Sep 1, 2018). https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/hite/en/topics/381.html

  7. Yoshizawa G, van Est R, Yoshinaga D, Tanaka M, Shineha R, Konagaya A (2018) Responsible innovation in molecular robotics in Japan. Chem-Bio Inform J 18:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shineha R, Tanaka M, Yoshizawa G, Konagaya A (2020) The ELSI and current status of molecular robotics research: towards technology assessment in future (in Japanese) (Apr 18, 2020). https://elsi.osaka-u.ac.jp/research/285

  9. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY, Rothenberg KH, Lockhart NC, Guyer MS (2014) The ethical, legal, and social implications program of the national human genome research institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 15:481–505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshizawa G (2009) Technology assessment in Japan. Sociotechnica 6:42–57 (in Japanese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yoshizawa G (2013) Responsible Research and Innovation: Beyond ELSI. J Sci Policy Res Manage 28(1):106–122 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  13. BIOMOD (Mar 18, 2021). http://biomod.net

  14. iGEM (Jan 31, 2022). http://igem.org/Main_Page

  15. Hails R, Kinderlerer J (2003) The GM public debate: context and communication strategies. Nat Rev Genet 4:819–825

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Barbagallo F, Nelson J (2005) Report: UK GM dialogue—separating social and scientific issues. Sci Commun 26:318–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pidgeon NF et al (2005) Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Anal 25:467–479

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rowe G et al (2005) Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Underst Sci 14:331–352

    Google Scholar 

  19. Horlick-Jones T et al (2006) On evaluating the GM Nation? Public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain. New Genet Soc 25:265–288

    Google Scholar 

  20. Horlick-Jones T, Rowe G, Walsh J (2007) Citizen engagement processes as information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality. Public Underst Sci 16:259–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Consumer Affairs Agency (2018) FY 2016 consumer opinion survey report on food labeling - matters related to the labeling of genetically modified foods (Excerpt Version). http://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/food_labeling/information/research/2016/pdf/information_research_170426_0002.pdf. Last accessed 30 May 2018

  22. Shineha R, Hibino A, Kato K (2008) Analysis of Japanese newspaper articles on genetic modification. J Sci Commun 2:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  23. Balmer A, Martin P (2008) Synthetic biology: social and ethical challenges. http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads/pdf/synthetic_biology_social_ethical_challenges.pdf. Last accessed 17 Feb 2018

  24. Pauwels E (2013) Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience 63:79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marris C, Jefferson C, Lentzos F (2014) Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: the case of dual use and synthetic biology. BioSocieties 9:393–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hart Research Associates (2017) Awareness & impressions of synthetic biology a report of findings based on a national survey among adults (2013). https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/emergingissues-2013-07-WilsonCenter-SynbioSurvey-en.pdf. Last accessed 4 March 2017

  27. Shineha R et al (2018) Comparative analysis of attitudes on communication toward stem cell research and regenerative medicine between the public and the scientific community. Stem Cells Transl Med 7:251–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Inoue Y, Shineha R, Yashiro Y (2016) Current public support for human-animal chimera research in Japan is limited, despite high levels of scientific approval. Cell Stem Cell 19:152–153

    Google Scholar 

  29. The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (2014) Report on the current status of human genome sequencing and ELSI: Towards a future technology assessment. https://ir.soken.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=4755&item_no=1&attribute_id=24&file_no=1. Last accessed 30 May 2018

  30. Kobayashi T (2007) The age of trans-science: linking science and technology to society. NTT Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bauer MW (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: a cultivation analysis. Public Underst Sci 11:93–111

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gutteling JM et al (2002) Media coverage 1973–1996: trends and dynamics. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G (ed) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, pp 95–128

    Google Scholar 

  33. Eyck T, Toby A, Williment M (2003) The national media and things genetics coverage in the New York times (1971–2001) and the Washington Post (1977–2001). Sci Commun 25:129–152

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bauer MW, Gutteling JM (2006) Issue salience and media framing over 30 years. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G (ed) Genomics & society: legal, ethical, and social dimensions. EARTHSCAN, pp 113–130

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shineha R et al (2017) Science communication in regenerative medicine: implications for the role of academic society and scientific policy. Regener Therapy 7:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sumner P et al (2014) The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a retrospective observational study. BMJ 349:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Keisen University, Tama, Japan

    Akihiko Konagaya

Authors
  1. Akihiko Konagaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akihiko Konagaya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Robotics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

    Satoshi Murata

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Konagaya, A. (2022). Social Acceptance of Molecular Robots. In: Murata, S. (eds) Molecular Robotics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3987-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation