As Shakespeare went on to say "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Or if you happen to be in biotechnology sweet might not be the word you would use.
Take the conference I'm attending in Montreal right now: 'The World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioprocessing - Linking Biotechnology, Chemistry & Agriculture to create a new value chain'.
Enough to strike fear into the heart of some consumers who worry about what geneticists and chemists gone bad. The same goes for the term Synthetic Biology.
In a morning presentation on Synthetic Biology yesterday, Eleonore Pauwels pointed out that in her study of American and European press coverage of Synthetic Biology, the term has proved to be an unfortunate way of describing the science. A science which we don't mind using when we need an insulin shot or if we contract malaria. Both generally accepted treatments are a product of Synthetic Biology. 

 Eleanore Pauwels presents at a breakout session at the World Biotechnology and Bioprocessing Congress in Montreal.

Even if you take Echinacea for a cold you are at the very least benefiting from a plant that has been selectively bred to yield much higher levels of the active ingredient. Aspirin is definitely a product of a 19^th century chemical revolution and we wouldn't want to live without it, so as we sit on the cusp of a biological revolution we may see the same leap forward. Eleonore's research has led her to speculate that Synthetic Biology as a term tended to lead people to think about altered definitions of life, scientists playing God, and visions of Dr. Frankenstein up to no good in a genetic engineering lab. The term isn't going to go away and it would be a mistake for science or industry to go on some sort of re-branding tangent.
It does however beg the question of how we frame the science and the debate.
Our own PhytoMetaSyn project is ALL about Synthetic Biology. It has a built-in ethics component to deal with some of the societal issues and I'll be faced with the challenge of communicating the work being done and eventually some of the results.
My plan is to keep it simple and not oversell it. We'll stay away from DuPont-like slogans about 'the miracles of science' and I'll aim for concrete examples about what can be done. For instance little did I know that there is no such thing as an artificial grapefruit flavouring. If Dr. Facchini's project can find the right pathways and eventually come up with yeast that produces the flavouring , then not only do we have a new industry but logically we could reduce some agricultural land use impacts.
We'll try not to get involved in the debate for or against Synthetic Biology but instead encourage discussions about how to keep it safe, sustainable, and of general value to society. There can be lots of discussion about the alternatives to Synthetic Biology and what the result would be if we stifled the research completely.
If scientists and researchers from industry or academia are confident about the work they are doing then they really don't have much to fear ( except maybe some increased stress levels ) about engaging in the debate.
Maybe a year from now I'll be having second thoughts but in the meantime, we'll keep the discussion open and free ranging.