Engineering Biology (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Neuberger Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her superb chairing of the committee and this inquiry. I also pay tribute to our wonderful staff, without whom, I have to say, I would have found it very difficult to write this speech.

I ought to declare my interests. I chair both the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Whittington Health NHS Trust. I am also a non-scientist member of the Science and Technology Committee, but I have a passionate belief in the need for the public at large to be engaged in the exciting—and enormously valuable to the UK—advances in scientific research, where this area of engineering biology plays such a strong role and where the UK has been a world leader for decades. However, we so often fail to tell the story.

We have done astonishingly well in the area of engineering biology, as well as in its predecessor disciplines of microbiology and biochemistry, but we are remarkably good at keeping quiet about it with the wider public. The committee was told that UKRI is funding some public engagement efforts and that DSIT has done a survey of the public’s knowledge and understanding of engineering biology, but that really is not enough. Public awareness is distressingly low. If the Government really foresee the bioeconomy taking off in consumer-facing sectors such as agriculture, we need to ask whether they are putting enough effort behind the regulators—the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised this—in terms of public engagement, resourcing such engagement and assessing their ability to communicate with the public about the implications of the products that they are creating.

The debate that took place on GMOs is an object lesson in how not to do it. We were and are remarkably successful in altering the DNA of plants and animals in ways to improve productivity or to resist disease. Our use of gene therapy, including using viruses as vectors for introducing genetic material into humans as a cure for diseases, is really exciting and life-saving, yet there is still a surprising amount of negativity. A quick Google search provides many examples of apparently reasoned objections. It seems that some sections of the public are far from convinced.

Although public perceptions of safety may be different from actual safety, we ignore those concerns at our peril. One big scandal could set research back significantly. For example, if there were the uncontrolled release into the environment of an organism that disrupted ecosystems—let alone a virus—or if there were a high-profile scientific scandal, public opinion could turn pretty quickly. We have not had that here yet, but they have had it in China, and it has had a damaging effect.

We need to think this through. We do not want ethical considerations blocking advances, but avoiding that requires keeping the public with us—explaining, educating and encouraging excitement and pride at what we can achieve. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics sensibly said that we have to be anticipatory here; that is missing. Of course, that is the exact opposite of what happened with the GMO debate. Indeed, we now hear that some of the hybrid plants that the UK is working on are easier to grow in the United States than here. This suggests greater public acceptance there—something that we could learn from—as well as an easier regulatory environment. We may or may not be sympathetic to that.

We are trying to negotiate a trade deal with the United States right now, so some of this matters. We have to get public perceptions and understanding in the UK up to speed. It is important for UK plc, as well as for our ability to cure and treat innumerable diseases, let alone many other benefits. What does the Minister plan to do in this area? We know that he wants limited priorities in a framework built around delivering four main outcomes, but we know nothing yet about how public engagement fits into all of that, which is a major component of the Government’s industrial strategy.

In our report, we argued that the Government should support public engagement for engineering biology and that regulators should explain the new technologies that they are regulating to the public and be resourced to do so. We said that UKRI should fund research into the public attitudes to engineering biology and, indeed, the ethical considerations as things come to market. The Government accepted our recommendations only in part. What is desperately lacking is a much broader public awareness and engagement campaign. Unless that happens, the ambitions for engineering biology will be hard to realise, public sympathy will be lacking, and we will risk more debate like that around GMOs, which has not gone away. The excitement and pride that we should have in our advances will be sorely lacking. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some comfort and tell us that public engagement is high on his list for regulators and government more widely.