Synthetic Biology in Nigeria: The Level of Awareness amongst Stakeholders

The respondents’ demographics are essential in understanding how synthetic biology is perceived across different age groups and professions. A significant portion of the respondents (78.5%) were aged between 18 and 45, a range where most individuals would not have witnessed the early development stages of synthetic biology, which gained momentum in the mid-2000s. As a result, many respondents in this age group may rely heavily on contemporary education, media, and current industry applications to form their understanding of the field. This could explain the observed gaps in historical knowledge of synthetic biology, as foundational aspects may not have been emphasized in their education or professional experiences. In contrast, the fewer older respondents (18.7% between 46–60 years and 2.8% between 60–70 years) may offer a broader perspective, particularly regarding the evolution of biotechnology and its historical challenges. Their responses could be more nuanced, particularly around issues of safety, ethics, and regulation, reflecting concerns that younger respondents may not fully grasp due to their limited exposure to the early challenges of synthetic biology [9]. The geographical distribution of responses shows a fair representation of bioscience stakeholders across Nigeria, highlighting the nationwide interest in synthetic biology. The South-South zone had the highest representation, which could indicate a more robust academic or research presence in that region. The diversity in professional backgrounds academia (45.8%), students (22.4%), and government institutions (19.6%) also suggests that synthetic biology is of interest to various sectors in Nigeria. Notably, the large percentage of academics and students suggests that synthetic biology is being increasingly integrated into educational curricula, while the involvement of policymakers and government workers signals growing institutional interest in regulating and developing the field. However, the relatively low participation of industry stakeholders (3.7%) indicates that the industrial application of synthetic biology might still be in its infancy in Nigeria. The results indicate that although only 27.1% of respondents were fully familiar with synthetic biology, there is a spectrum of awareness across the population. The fact that some respondents claimed to have heard a lot about synthetic biology emphasizes the growing presence of the field in academic and professional circles. However, the significant proportion of individuals who had little or no knowledge of synthetic biology (56.1%) highlights a gap in awareness and understanding that could hinder the engagement of key stakeholders in the research and application of synthetic biology solutions. The varying definitions provided by respondents reflect this gap in knowledge. Most respondents defined synthetic biology within the context of biotechnology or genetic engineering (23% and 21%, respectively), which suggests a narrower understanding of the field. This is consistent with global trends, where synthetic biology is often viewed as an extension of biotechnology due to its overlap with genetic engineering. A smaller fraction (14%) recognized synthetic biology as advanced engineering biology, while 9% linked it with artificial intelligence or nanotechnology, highlighting the multidisciplinary nature of the field. These findings align with Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency Act, 2015, which defines synthetic biology as the design and construction of novel artificial biological systems or the redesign of existing natural systems. This overlap in definitions underscores the importance of education and outreach to ensure that stakeholders have a comprehensive understanding of the field’s scope and its distinctions from related areas like biotechnology and genetic engineering. The diverse range of responses reflects the broad potential of synthetic biology across multiple sectors. The most common perception that synthetic biology is applicable in agriculture (21%) aligns with its role in genetically modifying crops to increase yields, improve resistance to pests, and enhance nutrient content. This is consistent with global trends, where synthetic biology plays a crucial role in advancing sustainable agricultural practices. The belief that synthetic biology is useful for research (14%) and medicine (12%) points to its growing influence in academic and clinical environments. Synthetic biology’s capacity to design novel biological systems makes it a valuable tool in medical research, particularly for developing therapies and diagnostic tools. Respondents who associated synthetic biology with environmental sustainability (9%) were likely thinking of its applications in bioremediation, where genetically engineered organisms can break down pollutants, or in the production of biofuels, which contribute to a more sustainable energy economy. Smaller percentages linked synthetic biology to genetic studies (8%), artificial intelligence (6%), and emerging fields such as vaccine and drug production (5% and 3%, respectively). This suggests that while respondents recognize synthetic biology’s potential in these areas, there may still be limited awareness of its more cutting-edge applications, like bio-inspired nanotechnology (1%). These findings echo several studies that have connected synthetic biology with all these applications. The field’s most significant breakthrough remains its ability to alter metabolism and produce high-value products, from biofuels and plant natural products to polymer precursors and bio-inspired materials [10]. This capability is spearheading an industrial revolution in bio-manufacturing, where microorganisms are transformed into chemical factories that rival traditional organic chemical synthesis methods [11]. The concerns raised by respondents reflect the broader global discourse surrounding the ethical and safety implications of synthetic biology [12,13]. As with any emerging technology, these apprehensions need to be addressed for synthetic biology to gain broader societal acceptance. The primary concerns identified in this study; biosafety, biosecurity, ethics, and regulation mirror the issues discussed in the scientific community. Biosafety concerns, such as the risk of exposure to harmful pathogens and toxic chemicals, are consistent with those already present in biotechnology fields like agricultural biotechnology [14]. However, synthetic biology’s potential to create novel organisms introduces unique risks that must be carefully managed [15]. As more sophisticated organisms are engineered, new biosafety protocols may need to be developed to protect both workers and the public. Biosecurity is another significant issue, particularly with the potential for synthetic biology to be misused for harmful purposes, such as recreating known pathogens, enhancing existing ones to be more dangerous, or engineering microbes to produce harmful biochemicals [16]. The fear of bioterrorism and dual-use purposes, as reflected by 13% of respondents, underscores the importance of stringent regulations to prevent the misuse of synthetic biology technologies. The environmental concerns raised particularly regarding biodiversity and ecosystem disruptions are also noteworthy [17]. Synthetic organisms used in agriculture, for instance, may have unintended consequences on land use and ecosystem services. These potential impacts reinforce the necessity for robust regulatory frameworks that ensure thorough risk and safety assessments before synthetic organisms are deployed in real-world applications [18]. Addressing these concerns through comprehensive regulatory measures, ethical debates, and transparent public engagement will be crucial to mitigating risks and promoting the responsible use of synthetic biology. The results demonstrate a generally positive attitude towards synthetic biology, with nearly half of the respondents recognizing the significant benefits of its applications in fields like medicine, agriculture, and environmental management. This favorable view is likely influenced by the transformative possibilities synthetic biology presents, such as the development of more effective drugs, drought-resistant crops, and biofuels that contribute to societal well-being and economic growth [19]. A noteworthy group of respondents perceives a balance between the risks and benefits, indicating awareness of both the potential advancements and the challenges posed by synthetic biology. This group seems to recognize the innovative solutions that synthetic biology offers while remaining conscious of ethical, environmental, and safety concerns that accompany these advancements. The smaller segment of respondents (5.6%) who believe that the risks outweigh the benefits might be primarily concerned with the unintended consequences of synthetic biology. Issues such as ecological disruption, biosecurity threats, and ethical dilemmas could drive this cautious perspective. These concerns align with broader discussions on the potential hazards of synthetic biology, including the disruption of natural ecosystems and the potential misuse of the technology for harmful purposes [20]. The substantial proportion of unsure respondents (29.9%) underscores the need for increased education and awareness campaigns. This uncertainty reflects a gap in knowledge about synthetic biology, not only within the broader public but even among bioscience stakeholders. Informing stakeholders and the public about synthetic biology’s potential applications, associated risks, and regulation is crucial to fostering a more informed discourse on the benefits and challenges of this emerging field [8]. The results highlight a critical need for increased awareness and information dissemination about available synthetic biology training institutions in Nigeria. With only 13.1% of respondents aware of such institutions, it is evident that there is either a lack of visibility or a limited number of institutions providing training in this emerging field. The identification of research institutes as the primary hubs for synthetic biology training by 19% of the respondents aligns with findings in the study by [21], which recognizes the importance of research centers in fostering advanced training and development. However, the limited recognition of universities as key players in synthetic biology education, with only 13% of respondents pointing to these institutions, is concerning. This is consistent with [22], which suggests that higher education institutions are under-utilized in training the next generation of synthetic biologists, despite having the potential to play a more prominent role. The mention of organizations such as IITA and SHESTCO by another 13% of respondents underscores the significance of these institutions in promoting scientific research and innovation in Nigeria. These organizations are well-established within the research community and are expected to be influential in driving synthetic biology education and training forward. Interestingly, 6% of respondents noted that synthetic biology training occurs during conferences, highlighting the role of professional gatherings as important venues for skill development and networking. Conferences provide opportunities for hands-on training and staying current with advancements in the field, making them valuable for both knowledge dissemination and professional growth. Overall, the survey results reveal a fragmented landscape of synthetic biology training in Nigeria, with research institutes, universities, and specialized organizations playing varying roles. However, the low level of awareness about these institutions points to the need for a more coordinated approach to increasing visibility and accessibility to synthetic biology education. Enhancing awareness of existing programs and improving access to training opportunities can help bridge the gap and foster greater development in this important field [2]. The survey responses suggest a multifaceted strategy for improving synthetic biology in Nigeria, with a strong emphasis on awareness creation. The fact that 23% of respondents called for increased awareness underscores the need for more educational and informational outreach programs. Synthetic biology remains a relatively new field for many, and improving understanding through public campaigns, workshops, and conferences could significantly boost interest and participation in this domain [23]. Engagement through social media platforms, suggested by 13% of the respondents, is another modern approach that could play a pivotal role in advancing the field. Social media has the power to reach a wide audience, including the general public, students, and professionals. By leveraging platforms such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, stakeholders can foster discussions, share updates on breakthroughs, and engage with a global audience on synthetic biology topics. This approach could help demystify synthetic biology and increase its appeal to a diverse demographic [11]. Education also plays a crucial role in this endeavor, as emphasized by 11% of respondents who suggested the inclusion of synthetic biology in the educational curricula. As mentioned in various studies, integrating synthetic biology into the curricula of higher institutions can give students early exposure to the field, providing them with the necessary knowledge and skills to contribute to its future development [14]. This step would ensure a steady pipeline of trained professionals capable of advancing synthetic biology research and innovation in Nigeria. Funding, investment, and capacity building were also deemed important, with 9% of respondents highlighting the need for financial support, training programs, and legislative backing. As noted in [16], sufficient funding is essential for establishing research labs, supporting experimental projects, and running training programs. Moreover, capacity building ensures the continuous development of skills and expertise within the field. Legislation, such as the National Biosafety Management Agency Act of 2015, already provides a regulatory framework for synthetic biology in Nigeria. However, more targeted regulations and support could further promote safe and ethical advancements in the field. Policy improvements were identified by 7% of respondents as another important factor. Developing policies that incentivize research and development, foster public-private partnerships, and streamline the commercialization of synthetic biology innovations can create an enabling environment for growth. Effective policies can remove barriers to innovation while maintaining the necessary safety and ethical standards required in such a highly specialized field. Finally, 5% of respondents pointed to the role of traditional media and specialized training programs. Traditional media campaigns can further publicize synthetic biology, making it more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. Meanwhile, specialized training programs can offer in-depth, hands-on experience for individuals looking to pursue careers in this field [24]. This dual approach would ensure both public awareness and professional competence, driving the advancement of synthetic biology in Nigeria. In summary, the responses reveal that a comprehensive approach encompassing awareness creation, social media engagement, educational integration, funding, capacity building, legislative support, policy improvements, and media outreach is essential for advancing synthetic biology in Nigeria (See Figure 13). The survey responses indicate a strong preference for the regulation of synthetic biology, with 80.4% of participants supporting the need for regulatory oversight. This overwhelming majority highlights a broad consensus that synthetic biology, as a rapidly evolving field, requires robust frameworks to ensure safety and ethical standards. The small percentage of respondents (1.8%) who opposed regulation reflects a minimal inclination toward a laissez-faire approach, in line with previous studies, such as [5], that point to the risks of an unregulated synthetic biology landscape. However, the responses also reveal a gap in awareness regarding which institution currently oversees synthetic biology regulation. Only 16.8% of respondents identified an existing regulatory body, suggesting a need for better communication and advocacy about Nigeria’s regulatory framework. The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) was the most commonly cited institution, recognized by 57% of respondents. This aligns with NBMA’s mandate to regulate modern biotechnologies, including synthetic biology, as per the National Biosafety Management Agency Act of 2015 (as amended in 2019). NBMA’s authority over gene editing, gene drives, and synthetic biology demonstrates its central role in ensuring the safe development and application of these technologies in Nigeria. In line with the NBMA Act 2015 (as amended), the agency also collaborates with other institutions and subject-matter experts in performing risk assessments. Interestingly, academic institutions such as Bayero University Kano (10%) and Ahmadu Bello University (9%) were also viewed as potential regulatory entities, reflecting the perception that universities may play a role in the governance of synthetic biology. However, this may stem from the involvement of these institutions in research and training, rather than direct regulatory authority. Similarly, organizations such as NAFDAC, SON, NABDA, and NCDC were mentioned by respondents, suggesting a perception that synthetic biology regulation could require collaboration across various sectors, given the wide range of potential applications, from food and drug safety to disease prevention and biotechnology standards. The survey also highlights differing views on the optimal regulatory structure for synthetic biology in Nigeria. The majority (72.9%) favored a collaborative approach, with the Federal Government working alongside academia and industry to create comprehensive guidelines. This reflects international best practices, which advocate for multi-stakeholder engagement in developing regulatory frameworks. Such an approach ensures that regulatory standards are informed by scientific research and practical industry considerations. Meanwhile, 8.4% preferred a centralized government-led framework, with the government solely responsible for guideline development, and 7.5% supported a system in which academia or industry develops the guidelines, with government enforcement. This split in opinions suggests ongoing debates about the most effective regulatory model for synthetic biology. The study findings further align with recommendations from studies like [5,7], which call for dedicated regulatory frameworks tailored to the specific challenges and opportunities of synthetic biology. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has similarly emphasized the importance of proactive regulation to manage the risks and benefits associated with synthetic biology. In Nigeria, adopting a separate set of standards and guidelines for synthetic biology, in line with global discussions under the CBD, could help address these regulatory challenges and ensure that the country remains at the forefront of biosafety and biotechnology governance. Overall, the survey results underscore the importance of regulation in synthetic biology, with a strong preference for a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach involving government, academia, and industry. However, gaps in awareness about existing regulatory bodies and responsibilities highlight the need for improved communication and clarity about synthetic biology oversight in Nigeria. This will ensure that the field can develop safely, ethically, and in line with global best practices (See Figure 17). The survey responses indicate that while there is substantial backing for the practice of synthetic biology, it is important to put in place measures to address the concerns and informational gaps that lead to uncertainty or opposition. This could involve more comprehensive educational initiatives, transparent discussions on ethical issues, and showcasing successful applications and safe practices in synthetic biology to garner broader acceptance and informed support [15]. The undecided respondents highlight the necessity for continuous education and transparent communication about the successes, challenges, regulation, and future potentials of synthetic biology. This could involve public engagement initiatives, educational campaigns, and open forums to build a well-rounded understanding of the ethical, societal, and environmental implications of synthetic biology [21,25].