Synthetic biology is a newly emerging interdisciplinary field that aligns engineering principles with biological equipment for adapting life. This article describes an incremental rhetorical experiment to insert human-focused (ethical) equipment into a technical project that adapted a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat/Cas9 gene-editing system. This ethical equipment was inserted via a contemporaneous study of the public instantiation of synthetic biology. The findings from this experiment show that by enacting multiple representations, accounts of synthetic biology have elicited similar discourse forms and actions as prior emergent technologies. But the discourses associated with synthetic biology have not (yet) coalesced into stabilized forms, suggesting that synthetic biology has yet to be instantiated as formal practice, so its meanings remain alterable. This article concludes by documenting an attempt to influence this emerging interdisciplinary field with an integrated ethical narrative.
BaakeK. (2003). Archaeology reports: When context becomes an active agent in the rhetorical process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 369–387.
3.
BazermanC. (1999). The languages of Edison’s light. Boston: MIT Press.
4.
BerubeD. (2006). Nano-hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
5.
BurkeK. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
CameronD. E.BashorC. J.CollinsJ. J. (2014). A brief history of synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 12, 381–390.
7.
ClementR. (2015). Stephane Leduc and the vital exception in the life sciences (Eprint arXiv No. 1512.03660). Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03660
CoppolaN.KarisB. (2000). Technical communication, deliberative rhetoric and environmental discourse: Connections and directions. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
10.
ElowitzM. B.LeiblerS. (2000). A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature, 403, 335–338.
11.
FaberB. (2006). Representations of nanoscience and technology in popular media. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 141–169.
12.
FaberB. (2007). Writing social change. In BazermanC. (Ed.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 329–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
FaberB.MacKinnonJ.PetroccioneM. (2005). Media portraits of nanotech in North American written media 1986–2000. Nanotechnology Law and Review, 2, 348–363.
14.
GardnerT. S.CantorC. R.CollinsJ. J. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature, 403, 339–342.
15.
GrossA. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HallerC. (1998). Foucault’s archeological method and the discourse of science: Plotting enunciative fields. In BattalioJ. (Ed.), Essays in the study of scientific discourse (pp. 53–69). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
17.
HalloranS. M. (1984). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3, 70–83.
18.
HarrisR. A. (Ed.). (1997). Landmark essays on rhetoric of science case studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
HarrisonM. M.JenkinsB. V.O’Connor-GilesK. M.WildongerJ. (2014). A CRISPR view of development. Genes & Development, 28, 1859–1872.
20.
HuckinT. (2002). Textual silences and the discourse of homelessness. Discourse and Society, 13, 347–372.
21.
HuckinT. (2004). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to texts and textual practices (pp. 13–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
HullD. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
KuhnT. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
LópezJ. J. (2008). Nanotechnology: Legitimacy, narrative, and emergency technologies. Sociology Compass, 2, 1266–1286.
26.
MaliP.YangL.EsveltK. M.AachJ.GuellM.DiCarloJ. E.…ChurchG. M. (2013). RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science, 339, 823–826.
27.
MarvinC. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. Oxford, England: University of Oxford Press.
28.
McNelyB. (2012). Big data, situated people: Humane approaches to communication design. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 1, 27–30.
29.
MehlenbacherA. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26, 127–144.
30.
PflugfelderE. H. (2013). Big data, big questions. Communication Design Quarterly, 1, 18–21.
31.
PurnickP. E.WeissR. (2009). The second wave of synthetic biology: From modules to systems. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 10, 410–422.
32.
RabinowP. (1999). French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
RabinowP. (2003). Anthropos today: Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
RabinowP.BennettG. (2012). Designing human practices: An experiment with synthetic biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
RiceJ. (2015). Revolutionary writing in the craft beer industry. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30, 236–261.
36.
SalvoM. (2012). Visual rhetoric and big data: Design of future communication. Communication Design Quarterly, 1, 37–40.
SzybalskiW.SkalkaA. (1978). Nobel prizes and restriction enzymes. Gene, 4, 181.
39.
TirardS. (2009). Stephane Leduc (1853-1939), from medicine to synthetic biology. Histoire Des Sciences Medicales, 43, 67–72.
40.
TurnerS. (2005). Critical junctures in genetic medicine: The transformation of DNA Lab Science to commercial pharmacogenomics. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 328–352.
