The Importance of Technology Assessment in Synthetic Biology Governance

Synthetic biology is advancing faster than most government systems can manage. Regulatory frameworks, scientific review processes and international governance mechanisms were largely designed for slower-moving technologies and many are struggling to keep pace with a field defined by rapid iteration and cross border research networks. After two decades of research investment, synthetic biology actual contribution to biodiversity conservation remains largely unproven in practice. Promised applications restoring degraded ecosystems, engineering disease resistance, replacing biodiversity-derived products with synthesized alternatives are still mostly theoretical or in early trials. For example gene drives or engineered organisms released into open environments can have irreversible ecological effects; once released, these present biosafety, socio-economic, ethical, and cultural risks. In addition, the conclusions of the AHTEG report clearly show that current benefits of synthetic biology to biodiversity are lacking, illustrating the speculative nature of synthetic biology. This means that the thematic action plan must incorporate precautionary safeguards, including ensuring that capacity is built for independent and sovereign assessment, governance and regulation of synthetic biology.

Given this combination of unproven benefit and unresolved risk, a robust, ongoing process of technology assessment is essential rather than optional. Technology assessment is a range of practices used by people across the world to evaluate new and emerging technologies through a deliberate, systematic process. To be effective, technology assessment must be partici-patory: it has to involve people who might be affected, or who have expertise through their life experience people in all their diversity, including indigenous peoples, farmers, and fisher folk, who are often part of popular and social movements. The aim of technology assessment is to look forward, anticipate and prevent damage before new technologies are introduced.

Technology assessment allows Parties to track the pace of development of synthetic biology techniques are advancing faster than regulatory and scientific capacity to evaluate them, so horizon scanning and periodic review help governance keep pace. It also
allows Parties to apply the precautionary approach in a structured way: in the absence of conclusive evi-dence on ecological, health, and socio-economic outcomes, technology assessment weighs potential benefits against potential harms before large-scale deployment, rather than allowing de facto adoption to outpace evaluation. And it allows Parties to address risks that are not purely biosafety-related: synthetic biology intersects with access and benefit-sharing, intellectual property, food security, traditional knowledge, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, requiring dedicated, ongoing scrutiny of its socio-economic, cultural, and ethical dimensions.

The governance of synthetic biology requires continuous, rigorous assessment before and as it develops. Where technology assessment is rigorous, governance can be proactive. Where it is weakened, governance risks becoming reactive managing harms that earlier scrutiny could have anticipated and prevented.