Attending the 2025 Spirit of Asilomar Conference shifted my scientific perspective profoundly—highlighting the urgent need to center ethics, equity, and human values in biotechnology.

Written by: MODESTA ABUGU, AgBioFEWS Fellow

*Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors as individuals and should not be taken as a reflection of the views of the whole of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center or NC State University.

Photos of the Asilomar conference grounds. Credit: Luis Campos

There are moments in a scientist’s journey when the work becomes more than experiments and data—when the questions we ask and the technologies we develop start to feel deeply personal. Attending the 2025 Spirit of Asilomar Conference was one of those moments for me. It wasn’t just a professional milestone; it was a powerful reminder that the future of biotechnology must be guided not only by innovation but by trust, humility, and shared responsibility.

Gathered on the quiet, wind-swept grounds of Asilomar—with its historic craftsman-style buildings and cozy fireplaces—I joined over 300 diverse participants from around the world to reflect on the future of biotechnology. What emerged was not consensus, but something deeper: an awakening to the human dimensions of science, encompassing disagreement, hope, humility, and the urgent need to ensure that biotechnology serves everyone—not just the powerful or privileged.

The original Asilomar conference held in 1975 was a milestone in scientific history, a groundbreaking event that influenced the direction of biotechnology and the course of scientific research for decades. This was the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, whose aim was not just to debate the scientific merits of a new and potentially groundbreaking technology but also to discuss its potential impacts on society and the environment. However, this conference was highly criticized for being dominated by scientists with little to no inclusion of the public, ethicists, community leaders, or policymakers.

50 years later, the 2025 conference sought to address these issues by including diverse participants from many parts of the world. I was lucky to be selected as one of the Next Generation Leaders (NGL), a passionate group of young scientists committed to advancing a more inclusive science. Important topics in biotechnology were discussed at the conference, including artificial intelligence (AI), pathogens research and biological weapons, deployment of biotechnologies beyond conventional containment, bioeconomic framing, communication, and public engagement. During the NGL group discussion sessions, opportunities were also provided for participants to reflect on what these topics meant to them and the communities they are serving.

In that space of reflection, I found myself not just thinking about innovation, but about responsibility. I was surrounded by scientists, ethicists, communicators, and policy advocates from radically different backgrounds, grappling with the same fundamental questions: who gets to shape the biotech agenda? How do we weigh innovation against precaution? And how can we ensure equity in access, voice, and impact, especially for historically marginalized groups? Discussions also revealed that beneath every genomic sequencing, gene editing, or engineered organism is a story of people, values, and consequences. Be it the scientists developing new technologies, the ethicists questioning their implications, the communicators bridging science and society, or the policy advocates shaping equitable frameworks. These stakeholders are all united by a common purpose- to leave the world better than they found it. It became clear to me that the future of biotechnology cannot be built solely on technical excellence; it must be shaped by empathy, trust, and the courage to confront uncertainty together.

The Next Generation Leaders at the conference

This understanding of the values behind every scientific breakthrough is especially vital in today’s complex biotechnology landscape in the United States. We’re living in a moment where gene editing tools like CRISPR are no longer confined to elite labs but are actively shaping the future of agriculture, medicine, and climate solutions. Synthetic biology is blurring the lines between what’s natural and what’s engineered, raising new ethical questions. At the same time, public trust in science is fragile, fractured by misinformation and the politicization of health and technology. Federal agencies are racing to update outdated regulatory frameworks, and startups are launching innovations faster than policies can keep up. Amid all this, marginalized communities still face barriers to access and representation in shaping these technologies.

What the Spirit of Asilomar meeting made clear is that our frameworks for governance and communication have not evolved at the pace of the science. What’s missing is not just more oversight, but better engagement. If we want it to serve everyone, it can’t be navigated by scientists alone. It requires ethicists, communicators, policymakers, and community voices at the table, building bridges between discovery and impact. We need transparent processes, ethical foresight, and storytelling that resonates with people’s lived experiences. Trust, humility, and transparency aren’t just nice-to-haves, but are essential if we want our work to be truly transformative.

Looking ahead, three key messages emerged from the discussions as urgent priorities for advancing biotechnology innovation in service of the common good:

1. Trust requires transparency and inclusion: The future of biotechnology depends not only on what we develop but how we invite others into the process. Public engagement must move beyond public relations. It should include mechanisms for dialogue, co-creation, and dissent. We must ensure that communication strategies are grounded in humility, not hype, and that they reflect the diverse values and voices across communities. The responsible innovation framework offers a promising approach to facilitate meaningful communication and engagement around emerging biotechnologies. It can help address not only stakeholders’ perceptions of risk, but also deeper concerns about the intentions and motivations behind the research. To build transparency, foster inclusion, and strengthen public trust, this framework should be embedded throughout the entire biotechnology development and adoption process.
2. Ethical governance is everyone’s responsibility: U.S. biotech leadership often focuses on speed and global competitiveness. But governance cannot be an afterthought. Whether it’s synthetic cells, gene drives, or bio-surveillance, policy must be proactive, not reactive. For inclusive governance on innovations, scholars have recommended the urgent need to establish a bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance of innovation, especially in agricultural biotechnology. This means building interdisciplinary frameworks that anticipate unintended consequences and integrating ethical deliberation into funding, regulation, and strategic planning. Such a forum could contribute to informed decision-making and public understanding of biotechnology innovations.
3. Language shapes power and participation: One of the most striking realizations at Asilomar was how often our scientific language alienates the very people we seek to serve. Jargon can be a barrier to public understanding, but it can also obscure power dynamics about who gets to ask questions, whose concerns are validated, and what outcomes are prioritized. Gakpo and Sanders recommend participatory and dialogue-based communication as a solution to more inclusive public participation. Use of simpler language, listening, and sharing value-based messaging are some strategies to make science accessible and encourage inclusive communication on innovation.

Reflecting now, I believe one of the biggest takeaways from Asilomar is that science must not outpace our ethics. As we enter an era where AI can influence discovery and synthetic biology redefines life itself, we cannot afford to ask only “can we?” We must also ask “should we?”, and we must do so in a collaborative and interdisciplinary way. As we look ahead, we must resist the urge to position biotechnology as a panacea. It is a tool with incredible potential, but also profound responsibility. The Spirit of Asilomar reminds us that responsible innovation is not simply about mitigating risk; it’s about being accountable to people, to ecosystems, and to future generations.

Group photo of participants at the conference

Modesta Abugu serves as the Partnership and Training Director for Something Else, a Science Communication Consultancy based in New Mexico. She leads stakeholder mapping and engagement efforts to foster collaboration in biotechnology and other areas of innovation. She is a 2022 AgBioFews fellow of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at NC State University and a 2015 fellow of the Alliance for Science at Cornell University. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in Biochemistry at the University of Nigeria Nsukka, a master’s degree in Horticulture from the University of Florida, and recently completed her PhD in Horticulture with a minor in Food Science and GES interdisciplinary studies from NC State University. She can be reached at mnabugu@ncsu.edu.