What's New Is Old: "Cultural Lag" and Governance of Risk in the Life Sciences.

As advancement in the life sciences quickens, management of risks remains reactive, creating problematic delays in risk mitigation and difficulties for development of a holistic risk governance strategy. A reactive posture for addressing risk undermines biosecurity and contributes to public distrust in science. This problem is not new. A temporal offset between scientific advancement and oversight of associated risks was described more than a century ago. In 1922, the American sociologist, William Ogburn, coined the term, "cultural lag." Cultural lag was premised on the interconnectedness of technology and society and referred to a period of maladjustment between the introduction of a new technology and societal responses to mitigate its downsides. We examine the consequences of cultural lag for risk governance in the life sciences by looking at three recently introduced technologies, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, the proposed creation of mirror life, and microbiome engineering. Our observations lead to three recommendations for addressing cultural lag. The first recommendation is structural, namely, consolidation of governmental oversight on emerging technologies; the second is goal-oriented, that is, a call for a holistic form of horizon scanning; and the third concerns process and calls for implementation of deliberative democratic principles and practices. By pursuing an anticipatory governance regime, with policymaking closely aligned to and coordinated with technology breakthroughs, we enhance research safety and security while promoting innovation, and as a secondary benefit, help to restore public trust in science.