By David Sun Kong, Ph.D.
We came to Asilomar with many aspirations, and also many uncertainties, guided by feelings of service and the weight of history. Might we, 50 years after the original 1975 Asilomar meeting, be able to make a similar contribution to the field of biotechnology and help shape the next 50 years of its future? And might we do so in a historical moment of deep political, social, and ecological uncertainty? We came together and formed our own collective bubble of some 300 participants to build fellowship and work, with excitement and recognition of the opportunity before us, but amidst an atmosphere of looming crisis, anxiety, and even fear. It was a moment that called for leadership, and at some level, conscious or unconscious, we were there to see if we could meet that moment.
We had a presumptive goal to work together in working groups of ‘themes’ to collectively create statements, recommendations, and other products—perhaps a statement calling for a ban on bioweapons research, or an agreement to forgo research on ‘mirror life’ synthetic organisms. While these work products remain in progress and their impact, small or large, will be seen and felt in the years to come, what emerged was, in my view, a deeper, more powerful insight—that what we need most for the future of the field is trust.
Professor Drew Endy, one of the Summit organizers, shared a piece on trust written by GeorgeP. Shultz on the occasion of his 100th birthday [Schultz, 2020]:
“Put simply: ‘Trust is the coin of the realm.’ When trust was in the room, whatever room that was—the family room, the schoolroom, the coach’s room, the office room, the government room, or the military room—good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.”
I had a unique perspective on the presence, absence, cultivation, and erosion of trust at Asilomar through my role serving as a Co-Chair of one of the five ‘themes’ (Framing the Future of Biotechnology) and as a Co-Chair of the ‘Next Generation Leaders’ (NGL) program. I was fortunate to have a seat in these ‘rooms’—with my fellow ‘theme’ Co-Chairs who were senior and seasoned leaders of synthetic biology, and also with the more than 50 young, dynamic, emerging leaders of the field, the NGLs, who hailed from diverse cultural, geographic, technical, and creative backgrounds, representing many of the voices absent from the original 1975 gathering.
Monday night, a day-and-a-half into the meeting, there was a feeling of betrayal of trust amongst many of the NGLs. How could we, 50 years later, be repeating many of the same mistakes from the 1975 meeting? There were feelings of exclusion, disempowerment, and a sense that the view of the future of the field was the same as the present and the past. In a historical moment of deep uncertainty, how could we meet that moment with ‘more of the same’? Was there space for a more radical vision, a more inclusive vision, that extended beyond the status quo and ‘usual suspects’ and institutional thinking of western science? What about the voices and visions of Asilomar participants from the Global South, Indigenous Peoples, or the next generation?
To the credit of many of the Summit leadership, with special acknowledgement to NGL Co-Chairs Dr. Callie Chappell, Dr. Alicia Johnson, and doctoral student Elise Zimmerman, that evening a mechanism for anonymous feedback was established, and there was listening done.Special sessions were organized Tuesday where participants could voice their frustrations, and a hectic day ensued amongst Summit leadership, led by Drew and Professor Luis Campos, to pivot the focus of the meeting from the planned structure of working groups and themes to center the meeting on trust and trustworthiness.
My friend, colleague, and Asilomar participant Ahmed Best speaks powerfully about feeling the future [Best, 2025]. As scientists and technologists, we seek ways to measure, to quantify. And yet, trust is something we feel. It bears repeating: we feel trust. It is a knowing. We know it when it’s there, and we feel its absence.
My fellow NGL Co-Chair Dr. Alicia Johnson spoke eloquently at the Tuesday evening plenary session:
“…the absence of trust has colored many conversations at this meeting. The old people don’t trust the young, the young don’t trust the old, the bench scientists don’t trust the social scientists, the social scientists don’t trust the bench scientists, the people who aren’t here don’t trust the people who are here, the people who are here don’t trust the people aren’t here. Scientists don’t trust their tools, technologists don’t trust their tools. Civil society folks remind us that trust is lacking.”
Her words were met with resonance and applause, and capped a series of remarks by Drew, Luis (on the history of ‘quarrelsome’ meetings at Asilomar), and organizer Charlotte Salomon. The pressure was off to deliver work products before departing the next day (Wednesday). A process was established for presenting, commenting, and revising entreaties after the Summit, but we would ‘move at the speed of trust.’
As a Co-Chair of the ‘Framing the Future of Biotechnology’ theme, one of my great honors was working with colleagues and NGLs WarīNkwī Flores, Maria Astolfi, Dr. Rolando Perez, and Leon Elcock on envisioning a new field of ‘Indigenous Biotechnology.’ While I have deep respect and admiration for the values and worldviews of my indigenous colleagues, I recognized that as a non-indigenous scientist and technologist, that my role would be one of service, and that my presence and participation would be predicated upon trust. Western science and institutions have inflicted deep harm to indigenous peoples, and whether I liked it or not, as a participant and representative of these institutions, I would have to earn trust.
I have worked as a community organizer for some twenty years, and in my experience, there are three simple steps that help to earn trust: to listen, to respond meaningfully, and to care.There are of course many other approaches as well, but doing these three things can go a long way toward creating a space for vulnerability and authenticity—essential conditions for trust building. When we feel seen, heard, and cared for, we can build and feel the ‘trust in the room’. And when we do, anything is possible.
Tuesday evening, after the plenary session, the NGLs gathered in the ‘Surf and Sand’ room, and the atmosphere had shifted radically from the night before. People felt heard, that their voices mattered, and that there was a meaningful and structural response to concerns. Now, it was time to get back to the work of envisioning the future of biotechnology—the future that we want to live in and be a part of.
It was so inspiring to be in these rooms, to see so much passion, and so much care. As scientists and technologists, we often use too much jargon and techno-speak that clouds a simple message—that we care. We care about the health of our communities, and want the sick and suffering to have access to transformative medicines. We care about the safety of our communities, and don’t want anyone hurt by the horrible dangers of bioweapons. We care about the health of our planet, and wish for a flourishing environment for generations to come.
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Our goal is to create a beloved community and this will require a qualitative change in our souls as well as a quantitative change in our lives.” [King, 1966]. The foundations of that ‘beloved community’ are built upon trust. It is my hope that we, the scientists and technologists shaping the next 50 years of biotechnology, take that lesson to heart. When we do, anything is possible.
This essay is an entreaty created as part of The Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology summit (February 23-26, 2025) in Pacific Grove, CA. You can find it here.
Best, Ahmed. “Feel the Future.” Long Now Ideas. The Long Now Foundation. February 14,2025. https://longnow.org/ideas/feel-the-future/.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom.” 1966. In A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James M.Washington, 61–65. New York: HarperOne, 1986.
Shultz, George P. "Life and Learning after One Hundred Years: Trust Is the Coin of the Realm."Hoover Institution, December 13, 2020.
