‘Early and meaningful’ public involvement in shaping engineering biology research and policy vital

Rethinking who trusted voices are in communities; ensuring financial investment in public engagement is long-term and sustained; and moving away from only exploring ‘hot topics’, are just some of the ideas discussed at a recent roundtable on the role of public opinion in shaping engineering biology research and policy. 

In May 2025 Sciencewise and the British Science Association brought together leaders from UK universities, the private sector, research funders, bioethics organisations, civil society, and policymakers to discuss the UK public’s role in shaping engineering biology research and policy.   

Representatives attended from the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, the House of Lords, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Food Standards Agency, Wellcome, University of Birmingham, University of Kent, and other organisations.   

Engineering biology is a rapidly-developing field of science and one of the critical technologies identified by the UK government as key for ensuring growth and building a competitive advantage. It harnesses our understanding of the mechanisms of biological systems in cells and organisms, combining techniques developed in the biological sciences with technologies. 

As a low carbon technology, engineering biology could solve societal challenges faced in food, health, energy, materials, and chemicals. However, like other major technologies, engineering biology’s transformative potential means that it needs to be developed and deployed in a responsible and ethical manner.  

At the roundtable, participants looked at how the scientific community could start a more open and inclusive discussion with the public about the fundamental research underpinning engineering biology and its applications. 

The discussion was aimed at meaningfully considering where tensions and challenges lay, as well as the potential benefits to more, and better, public engagement. 

Key messages included: 

• Engineering biology has developed as an overarching ‘brand’ term for a range of technologies and research and innovation areas which have transformative potential, but they have potential for different social impacts in different spheres.  

• It could be beneficial to have a more balanced approach to public engagement. Many dialogues are risk based, which sometimes can backfire. Rather than always approaching the public with a problem, some participants thought that this should be balanced with a discussion on the potential benefits. 

• It is important to consider who the trusted voices on the ground are and how we can best use them when engaging the public in conversations about science and technology. In the community engagement context, the key brokers might not be celebrities, but faith leaders, local schools or libraries’ representatives.  

• There is a need to build a coordinated system of public dialogue. Rather than episodic engagement, the focus should be on sustaining and deepening interwoven dialogues around engineering biology and other emerging technologies. This also needs to be reflected in a budget. 

• It is important to engage the public in conversations about science and technology at all levels, from high-level ethical questions to specific applications of particular technologies, and not just current ‘hot topics’. There is also a need for the sector to get better at demonstrating how people’s feedback can influence science.   

A full summary of the discussion is now available to download: 

What is the role of public opinion in shaping engineering biology research and policy? (PDF) 

The BSA is part of a consortium of organisations delivering Sciencewise, alongside Involve, and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), in partnership with UK Research and Innovation. 

Find out more about Sciencewise at www.sciencewise.org.uk  

Read other Sciencewise reports by the BSA