Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

How do new scientific fields actually come into being? Examining synthetic biology's emergence in Australia, this paper reveals field formation as messy coordination work involving translating interests, building alliances, and negotiating legitimacy under uncertainty.

Paper long abstract

This paper examines field formation as an ongoing practical accomplishment, focusing on the work required to hold a field together as a viable object of research, investment, and policy attention. Through an in-depth empirical analysis of synthetic biology in Australia, it traces how an emerging scientific field is stabilised under constrained and competitive policy environments. Synthetic biology provides a particularly instructive case, combining epistemic ambiguity over whether it constitutes a distinct field with strong policy interest in its transformative potential.

Drawing on ethnographic research and semi-structured interviews with scientists, research leaders, early-career researchers, and policy actors, the analysis traces the development of synthetic biology in Australia from its early emergence through distinct initiatives, its consolidation through alliance formation and community building, and subsequent institutionalisation and legitimation work. The analysis shows how field formation depends on sustained negotiation and alignment work across multiple levels, including how interests are translated across institutional settings, how alliances are strategically aligned, how legitimacy is mobilised through intermediary organisations, and how coordination is sustained in the face of uncertainty and competition.

The paper reveals the limits of retrospective explanations of field formation and highlights the implications for understanding science and innovation policy as a negotiated and locally configured process rather than assuming coordination follows from shared epistemic commitments or clearly defined innovation trajectories.