Paper long abstract:

Synthetic biology provides an interesting case for analysing the challenges and difficulties to organise debates about emerging sciences - and the role of STS therein. French public authorities have called for a "real" and "transparent" dialogue between science and society and call for a "serene", "peaceful and constructive" public debate. A Forum of Synthetic Biology was therefore launched to offer a space of "open and pluralistic" debate in order to favour an "enlightened and constructive" discussion. Both natural as well as social scientists sat on the organizing committee.

However, the first debate organised in the scope of this Forum was interrupted by a group of protesters and the Forum has been suspended since. To understand the protests and critiques made I draw on the distinction between "divisible" and "indivisible" conflicts (Barthe, Hirschman). On the one hand, the Forum of Synthetic Biology considers itself as a space of dialogue and debate where people can deliberate and negotiate. It is a space of divisibility - a space to which STS scholars actively contributed. On the other extreme, the protesters were "indivisible" in their criticisms. They condemned the practices, objectives, products, institutions, and debates to do with synthetic biology. Even the sociologists involved have been criticised as "sociologists of acceptability". This begs the question, then, whether STS scholars who are involved in synthetic biology are inevitably in favour of "divisible" conflicts?