Futures 155 (2024) 103302

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Ordering the past, envisioning future(s): How review articles in

synthetic biology make use of heterogeneous expectations
Clemens Blümel
German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article deals with expectation dynamics in the field of synthetic biology. The article draws on
Synthetic biology scholarly review articles as the main material, complemented by expert interviews conducted
Expectations with scholars from the field. The aim is to explore how expectations change over time and how
Review articles
they are used to justify and move the field. Drawing from conceptual advances of the sociology of
Textual practices
expectations, I show how expectations are increasingly linked at different levels (the landscape,
sector, and niche level) and how they support and justify the field among different audiences. The
analysis shows that, while in the early period expectations supported different innovation paths
and communities (such as chemical biology, protocell research, as well as bioengineering),
bioengineering becomes the dominant representation in the second period. Linkages between
expectation levels increase the relevance of bioengineering concepts, while the history type of
review articles link bioengineering’s past with the future of the field. Interviews and comple­
mentary material reveal that this reflects changes in the community as well as in the policy realm.
Based on the material, it is argued that review articles can play a role in the formation of col­
lective expectations and in the construction of scientific collectives, such as synthetic biology.

1. Introduction

Emerging research areas are often described as arenas for the negotiation of technological and societal futures, coupling techno-
scientific potentials and prospects with envisioned societal use. In the field of science and technology studies, debates have arisen
about how to explore such socio - technological futures, their dynamics, and their social forces (Borup et al., 2006; Konrad, 2001,
2006). Consequently, future narratives have been studied in various forms of discourse, in novels, newspaper articles, forecasts
(McDowell 2012), and in YouTube videos (Kozinets, 2019). But future narratives can also be found in scholarly writing.
In this article, I deal with the different practices of using expectations in scholarly review articles, a scientific genre which has
received relatively little attention in studies of science and technology (Azar & Hashim, 2014, Blümel 2021, Blümel & Schniedermann
2020). Review articles can be conceived as textual arenas where the past, present, and future of research fields or research topics are
closely intertwined. Scholars engaging with writing reviews in their various forms find themselves confronted with expectations not
only to synthesize (Woodward, 1974), but also to productively engage with lines of research fields by creating new paths and new
perspectives towards their present and futures (Myers, 1991). Review articles may be well suited to articulating visions and expec­
tations, as they allow for establishing research agendas (van Merkerk & Robinson, 2006) and novel labels for emerging research areas
(Hedgecoe & Martin, 2003). For instance, Hedgecoe and Martin (2003) found that the term pharmacogenomics and visions about its

E-mail address: bluemel@dzhw.eu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103302
Received 13 October 2022; Received in revised form 13 November 2023; Accepted 11 December 2023
Available online 13 December 2023
0016-3287/© 2024 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

future first appeared in scholarly review articles. In a similar way, Bitsch and Stemerding (2013) investigated scholarly review articles
in order to trace the innovation journey of genomics and asthma research.
Against this background, the current article deals with expectations in scholarly review articles in an emerging research field,
namely, the field of synthetic biology. With a share of 16% of all publications, review articles are more widespread here than in other
fields (Blümel, 2021).1 One also finds in the literature that scholars are strongly engaging with the field’s promissory futures (Kas­
tenhofer, 2013; Raimbault et al., 2016), aiming to establish research agendas on various occasions. Hence, expectations apparently
played a crucial role in raising awareness for this field (Kastenhofer, 2013; Molyneux-Hodgson & Meyer, 2009). Yet, it is less clear how
exactly they contributed to supporting specific concepts and innovation paths. Given the contestation of the field’s identity, expec­
tation dynamics may have uncertain consequences. They can lead to increasing uncertainty, but they can also stabilize epistemic paths
of the field. In this article, I argue that exploring the use of expectations contributes to understanding why a specific approach within
the field, namely bioengineering, succeeded in becoming the dominant representation of synthetic biology. This raises several
questions: first, how and in what ways are expectations used in the field’s scholarly review literature? Second, if and how do uses of
expectation change over time? And finally, how do these expectation dynamics in the scholarly review literature relate to the insti­
tutionalization of the research field? Generally, I deal with the question of how review articles can be used for exploring expectation
dynamics in scholarly literature. The last question has received relatively little attention.
To explore these questions, I will deal with how articulations of expectations are used in review articles. Drawing from the soci­
ology of expectations (Konrad, 2006; Budde & Konrad, 2019; Van Merkerk & Robinson, 2006), I contend that expectations are arti­
culated (differently) on various levels and they may either support or restrain each other. By exploring dynamics of linkages between
expectations and textual dynamics, I aim to understand which textual forces are mobilized to support or weaken intellectual streams
within the field. The research conducted here complements existing research on interlinked expectations (Geels, 2002; Budde &
Konrad, 2019) and focuses particularly on the role expectations play within scholarly texts, taking advantage of existing knowledge in
genre studies (Swales, 1990). Patterns of using expectations indicate the increasing discursive closure of the field and stabilization of
the bioengineering approach.
The article is organized as follows: in the following section, I provide a theoretical frame for analysis, drawing from the sociology of
expectations. In the third section, I present the material of scholarly review articles and provide an analytical strategy to explore the
articulation of expectations in this type of scientific text. In the fourth section, I present dynamics in the use of expectations. This
analysis focuses on how the use of different types of expectations and the linkages between them changes over time. In the fifth and
sixth sections, I discuss my findings, relating them to current research on reviews and collective expectations.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. The perspective of the sociology of expectations

In analyzing the practice of envisioning futures in scholarly literature, I draw from conceptual advances of the sociology of ex­
pectations in science and technology. I am particularly interested in how expectations are used as a communicative resource for
mobilizing support for the research field, or, to be more precise, for specific interpretations thereof. Research into expectation practices
has so far revealed that expectations are used specifically in early phases of technology (Borup et al., 2006; Brown, 2003; Brown et al.,
2000). The sociology of expectation contributed to studying the functional uses of expectations in various settings and across different
types of documents (e.g., policy documents, press releases) (Konrad, 2006; van Merkerk & Robinson, 2006). Expectations, it was
found, can be generative in that they contribute to mobilizing resources for research and technology (Borup et al., 2006, 286).
Alternatively, they can also be conceived as a resource to address different stakeholders. It was also found that expectations can change
over time, reflecting changes in scientific and policy discourse. Hence, expectation studies offer a perspective on how to study both the
heterogeneity and dynamics of novel techno-scientific fields.
Further, expectation studies may also help to understand the dynamics of the persuasive forces of envisioning futures in science and
technology, in that expectations can have different discursive effects on research paths and innovation dynamics in emerging fields
(Van Merkerk & Robinson, 2006). It is precisely such discursive uses of expectations that have motivated this study: how are ex­
pectations used in scholarly literature and how do their dynamics affect research paths and epistemic identities in a novel research field
such as synthetic biology?
In order to trace the dynamics of expectations in research fields, Kornelia Konrad distinguishes between collective and individual
expectations (Konrad, 2006, p. 431). While individual expectations refer to expectations related to the behavior of individual actors,
collective expectations are those expectations “not attributable to specific actors or groups of actors” (ibid., p. 431), but are instead
considered to be “expectations of generalized others” (ibid.). The communicative and persuasive characteristics of collective expec­
tations support and structure communicative interactions by providing taken for granted knowledge about what is to happen (and
-perhaps, what ought to happen) in the future, though it partly “conceal[s] uncertainties” (Budde und Konrad 2019, p. 1098). Hence,
collective expectations are a stabilizing force in communicating a novel technology field (Konrad, 2006, p. 434). It is because of this
communicative function that I concentrate particularly on collective expectations in the following discussion.
To understand why collective expectations are articulated in scholarly communication of emerging fields, it is vital to understand

1
See also section three for a description of the share of review articles within synthetic biology.

2
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

that they are often communicated as socio-technological promises. They refer to or often stand for particularly valuable future states of
science and society (Borup et al., 2006, p. 286). Against this background, I explore expectation dynamics as a resource for legitimizing
the field of synthetic biology. In institutionalist theory, legitimation can only be granted based on a specific social order and if a
communication relates to and resonates with values of a specific audience. According to Suchman (1995), “legitimacy is a generalized
perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed system of
norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). Hence, expectations needed to refer to a specific set of values or beliefs
of specific social groups if they were to have a legitimating effect. Conversely, different levels of expectations may correspond to
different narratives, stories, or world views shared by different groups in the scholarly or public realm.
Based on the work of Truffer et al. (2008) and Geels (2002), Budde and Konrad (2019, p. 1101) have suggested a framework for
such different, but interrelated, forms and types of expectations. They distinguish between landscape, regime, and niche expectations
related to societal and technological aspects of emerging research fields. Landscape expectations are collective expectations referring to
long-term societal changes and transformations, such as climate change (see also Budde & Konrad, 2019, p. 1100). Regime expectations
refer to future changes of socio-technological assemblages at the level of industry or institutional fields, whereas niche expectations refer
to imagined futures of a specific research and technology field (see also Budde & Konrad, 2019, p. 1103).
Expectations of different levels are often linked, for instance to account for the societal or economic relevance of a scientific field or
epistemic practice. By exploring patterns of expectation linkages over time, one may also find changes in how expectations are used.
Such perspectives are of value in the analysis of emerging research fields, where boundaries, methods, and concepts are often con­
tested. Emerging techno-scientific fields involve many different types of actors – researchers, entrepreneurs, and policy makers – with
different aspirations and cultures of valuation. The latter certainly applies to the field of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology is a
research and technology field that has gained the attention of both policy and business (Kastenhofer, 2013). Its goals and aims are
widespread and span from creating artificial biological entities to the re-design of biological functions. In the last 15 years, the field has
experienced widespread awareness among (younger) scholars as well as policy-makers. Imaginaries of a new bio industry have
flourished and it has been claimed that the research field can contribute to tackling both societal and technological challenges (Hil­
gartner, 2015). The visions of the field’s prospects, however, seem to compete or at least stand in juxtaposition to each other. There are
different views on how it should develop and which disciplinary ideas are most relevant for its progress (O Malley et al., 2008;
Deplazes, 2009). At least three different approaches have been distinguished: DNA-based construction - also known as the biobricks
approach (O’Malley et al., 2008, p.57), genome-driven cell engineering, with the aim of synthesizing complete, but minimal genomes
(ibid., p.58), and protocell creation, with the idea of constructing minimal biological systems, e.g., cells (ibid., p. 59, see also Raimbault
et al., 2021, p. 96). These communities have established rather diverging ideas of how the field should develop, based on the different
intellectual influences on which they are founded. Most notably, Bensaude Vincent (2013) established that competing disciplinary
visions of bioengineering and chemistry exist within the field. These communities also vary in the extent to which they make use of
expectations to mobilize support and establish dominant representations of the field. For instance, bibliometric analyses suggest that
the visibility of the protocell community has decreased within synthetic biology (Raimbault et al., 2016; Raimbault et al., 2021).2
In this paper, I aim to further contribute to answering the question as to why this is by exploring a specific textual material: review
papers. Review papers are suited to establishing interpretations of research fields and their relevance (Bastide et al., 1989). Regarding
the emergence of research fields, review papers have different functions. They are sites for generating awareness, as review papers
often address different communities and broad audiences. But review papers may also contribute to the work of identifying scientific
collectives, given that they also allow for establishing specific interpretations of a research field or topic. Visions and expectations can
play a role in further stabilizing a given disciplinary identity, particularly if they are related to more specific research programs that
can be taken up by others. For instance, Van Merkerk and Robinson (2006) contend that review articles function as avenues for
transforming upcoming visions in agenda-setting processes within research fields. Yet, how these agenda-setting processes evolve in
scholarly discourse has so far not been studied in detail.
I attempt to explore expectation dynamics and their textual articulation in review articles as a means to reconstruct how (in­
terpretations of) emerging fields are established. As previously mentioned, visions can strengthen specific agendas in such a way that
they cannot easily be changed (Van Merkerk & Robinson, 2006). In doing so, the research I present here can add to existing research
about institutionalization processes in synthetic biology (Calvert 2013; Kastenhofer 2013a, b; Bensaude Vincent, 2013). To explore
these textual patterns of expectations, I have conducted a content analysis of review papers. In the following section, I present how the
material was collected and analyzed.

3. Data and methods

3.1. Corpus construction

The material in this article consists of 77 review articles from different sources, to account for the large variety of reviewing
practices in the biomedical and engineering field. These review articles were retrieved based on a search algorithm following and
complementing Pei et al. (2012) and Oldham’s et al. (2012) methods, but using the Web of Science (WoS) database and specific search
terms (see Blümel, 2021, p.69). Focusing particularly on the emergence of synthetic biology, the search period was restricted to

2
This also corresponds to interviews I conducted, where interviewees of the chemical biology approach view themselves as being misrepresented
in the broader understanding of synthetic biology.

3
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

2002–2012. Although the first conceptual articles about modularization of biology were published around 1999 (Hartwell et al., 1999)
and experimental works such as the toggle switch were conducted in the early 2000 s, commentators agree that the name “synthetic
biology” was coined between 2000 and 2003 (Campos, 2009; Shapira et al., 2017, p. 1457). While some scholars interviewed for this
study (Prof_SynBio_2021_2) see the first synthetic biology conference (Synthetic Biology 1.0), others consider the first mention of
synthetic biology in the literature as the founding event.
The search strategy was adapted from Pei et al. (2012) and Oldham’s et al. (2012) methods, but additionally takes expert advice
from within the field into account. The full search term is described in Blümel (2021).3 I present the results of this search here to show
the data basis and selection strategy for this corpus. This search strategy yielded a total of 3406 publications (after removing dupli­
cates), covering more than 520 different journals (Blümel 2021). According to the WoS algorithm, about 18% of the articles retrieved
via the search algorithm were classified as review articles, while 52.8% of the publications were classified as research articles (Blümel,
2021, p. 69). I have slightly corrected this number after performing additional quality checks, as WoS automatically assigns the
document type review to articles containing more than 100 references. This resulted in 16% of the documents in the final corpus being
classified as reviews. This seems to be a relatively high percentage, even considering that review articles in the biomedical fields
constitute a more substantial share of the research output compared to other fields.
Which documents have been collected for analysis in this article and how was the list curated? Papers were included based on
citations in the scholarly literature. Reviews with at least 50 citations were included, but most review articles received many more
citations than this. Expert advice led to the inclusion of a small number of additional review articles. A final corpus was analyzed using
computer software for qualitative data analysis (MAXQDA). The corpus has been interpreted based on inductive as well as deductive
coding strategies, some of which are presented here. While in Blümel (2016), I concentrated on a close reading of a few, selected review
articles from this corpus that were particularly visible in the field, in this contribution I provide a more holistic picture of the dynamics
and structures of visionary practices. To more systematically show how expectation studies and genre analysis can be combined, I also
provide information in the following section about how the coding system was generated.
The document analysis was complemented by 26 semi-structured interviews with authors and readers of review articles, several of
which were identified based on the list of publications retrieved in the bibliometric analysis (see annex). The interviews dealt with the
researchers’ perceptions of the field, its major publications (which included the review articles presented here), as well as their own
academic biographies and publishing practices. These interviews were particularly relevant for interpreting the role of review articles
in the formation of the field and its innovation dynamics, accounts of which are presented in the discussion section.

4. Results

4.1. Expectations in the coding system

The resulting material has been coded in 6 iterations leading to 971 codings of textual passages in the corpus. The analytical
strategy included both horizontal codings, that is, codings of complete subcategories across the corpus to get information about
structure and dynamics of the usage of visionary language in the corpus. In addition, case-specific coding strategies, i.e., coding
strategies focusing on a given text were employed.4 In the following section, I present a more general account of the coding system,
focusing on the structure and locus of expectations.
The exploration of the corpus of review articles was extensive and contained different analytical coding strategies aiming at
analyzing characteristics and uses of expectations.
Table 1 presents an overview of the main coding system and major subcategories. The final category system consists of 18 main
categories, related to four major parts (modes of textual presentation, field description, justification, and expectations) and subdivided into
53 subcategories (not all of which are presented here). This allows for a detailed analysis of the use of expectations and their
embeddedness in overarching textual structures, while also relating to different representations of the field. I explore how visions
support or legitimize different ‘tribes’ within synthetic biology, such as the genome-driven cell engineering, protocell, and bioengi­
neering communities. As previously mentioned, I refer to collective expectations in the sense defined by Konrad (2006) as ‘expecta­
tions not attributable to individual actors.’ All text passages which combined attributes of the field (novel scientific practices) with
future collective expectations were identified.5 I found various accounts of collective expectations such as the following.
The second wave of synthetic biology will have a significant and pivotal impact on our ability to solve biological and environmental
problems in a more predictable, robust and efficient manner” (Purnick & Weiss, 2009, p. 420).
This passage is a good example of collective expectations in the sense defined above, since expectations cannot be restricted to
“specific actors” (Konrad, 2006). The field of synthetic biology is considered relevant as having “an impact on our ability to solve (…)
problems”.

3
‘Synthetic Biology’ OR ‘artificial cell’ OR ‘minimal genome’ OR artificial system AND biology* ’ OR ‘artificial ecosystem’ OR ‘XNA’ OR
‘Computational design NOT Engineering’ AND ‘Artificial Life’ (Blümel 2021, p. 69)
4
Case-specific coding strategies were applied to understand the structure of arguments in a whole review article, particularly for those articles
that were highly cited and that showed specific characteristics in terms of the rhetoric repertoire employed (see also Blümel, 2016). Horizontal
coding strategies, however, were applied to refine and restructure the coding system for the whole material of review articles, thus moving back and
forth from the empirical material to the theoretical framework.
5
Collective expectations were identified based on a set of identification criteria and anchor examples to make coding more consistent.

4
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

Table 1
Frequency analysis (selection codings of the MAXQDA coding set).
Category Subcategory Frequency Anchor example

Textual organization
Define 51 2009_PW
Exemplify 56 2005_E
Problematize 54
Classify and Evaluate 18 2011_Ru
Narrate 35
Field construction
Identity accounts 67 2007_Dr
Goals and aims of the field 45 2006_An
Rhetoric strategies
Comparisons 23 2006_HP
Generalized audience 23
Authorative reference 32 2007_Ka
Justifications Epistemic control 122
Societal reward 81
Use of expectations
Field landscape expectations 28 2006_An
Field regime expectations 55 2009_Lu
Field expectations 32 2008_B
Sum 722
Other codings Not specified here 249
Total codings 971

Source: Own research

While existing definitions of expectations facilitated the identification of relevant textual passages for the analysis, I also drew from
expectation studies (Budde & Konrad, 2019) to distinguish different types of expectations: I coded niche expectations if, based on a
specific attribute of the field, a specific scientific or technological future for the research field or even of a larger disciplinary realm was
envisioned (e.g., biomedicine, biology, life sciences). One finds several claims of how synthetic biology contributes to redefining
biotechnology or even biology. Second, I coded textual passages as regime expectations, if they contained claims regarding the con­
tributions of synthetic biology to a given established sector or even branch, such as the production of materials or, as in the example
below, for clinical purposes. Table 1 shows that such use of expectations is frequent in the corpus (N = 55), particular in the later period
(2009–2012) studied here (see section 4.4.).
The field of synthetic biology is beginning to use its methods and platforms to bring engineering approaches into biomedicine.
Effective synthetic biology therapies are being rationally designed and implemented as researchers build constructs (e.g., engineered
biomolecules, synthetic gene networks, and programmable organisms) to alter mechanisms underlying disease and related biological
processes. (Ruder et al., 2011).
Third, I have coded landscape expectations passages that relate the field of synthetic biology to larger societal transformations or
changes (see also the aforementioned example of Purnick and Weiss 2009, p. 420).
These types of expectations are communicative resources that each address different audiences and serve different functions with
respect to the institutionalization of the field. While landscape expectations often refer to taken for granted knowledge that is widely
shared and can create greater awareness by broader audiences, niche expectations address smaller scientific communities and may be
particularly relevant for establishing research agendas to be taken up by others. Sector expectations relate to potential direct economic
uses of technologies. The analysis shows (section 4.4. and 4.5) that the uses of these expectations are not spread equally across the
corpus and change over time. The use of one or several expectations indicates changes in epistemic dynamics and the amount of
support for a specific representation of the field.

4.2. Accounting for relationships across expectation levels

To understand how these different expectations are used to support and legitimize a specific epistemic practice or dominant
representation, I have also accounted for the linkages between them. Links across expectation levels (such as between landscape and
niche level) indicate ways of attributing relevance to a specific interpretation of the field or its practices (e.g., modeling or optimization
techniques). But linkages can also be found on the same level (e.g., on the niche level), such as between a technological vision within
the realm of synthetic biology and other fields (niche-niche expectation linkage), such as metabolic engineering or systems biology.
The following passage is an example of these interlinkages between synthetic biology and stem cell research.
Clearly, the field is at its earliest stages, but as has been demonstrated by a number of seminal studies, there is a huge potential in
using materials of stem cell biology applications. In particular, with advances in the biological understanding of the stem cell niche, it
may be possible to merge biomimicry and bioinspiration to form advanced biomaterials that direct stem cell fate in novel ways. (Fisher
et al., 2010).
In this example, links between niche-level expectations also indicate scientific and technological relevance. Further, links to dy­
namic research fields are presented to signal that knowledge can be widely used. Claims of relevance are also visible when links to

5
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

expectations on the regime level are established. In the following statement, for instance, the field is presented as a means to support
therapy developments.
With new tools and approaches, synthetic biology may be well poised to advance novel therapeutic modalities, diagnostic tools,
and scientific methodologies to help researchers understand biological systems in health and disease” (Cheng & Lu, 2012, p. 172).
Similarly, I found passages containing claims about the wider significance of technological developments of synthetic biology. I
have coded these as landscape-niche expectations establishing relationships between future societal trends and developments in the
fields. Again, the comparative analysis shows that accounts of expectation linkages vary over time, indicating changing needs for
institutionalizing the field. While landscape expectations are apparently used more often to raise awareness for the field among
different stakeholders in the early phase of the field, there is growing need for establishing direct links between subject fields in order
to develop sustainable research agendas. The extent to which expectations are included in such agenda-setting practices is shown by
taking into account the (locus of) textual presentation and its linkages to reported research.

4.3. Accounting for the textual presentation of expectations

To reconstruct how the use of expectations relates to different innovation paths and contributes to further institutionalization of the
research field, I have also analyzed the ways in which research is reported, and which categories and interpretations are established to
nurture stabilization, change, or progress in the field. Review articles, as previously mentioned, can contribute to ordering the field by
commenting on, evaluating, or synthesizing research (Woodward, 1974; Azar & Hashim, 2014). In Blümel (2021, p.73), I described
these different ways of ordering in more detail. Here, I seek to explore to what extent and in what ways expectations are part of these
ordering practice of commenting on primary research. These passages also reveal how synthetic biology review articles deal with the
epistemic diversity of the field and its - partly competing - representations.
Again, I draw from the sociology of expectations to develop my analytic strategy. Van Merkerk and Robinson (2006) argued that
review articles are avenues for pushing research agendas and that expectations can play a role in strengthening them. Yet, the analysis
indicates that agenda-building does not occur in each article and follows specific textual patterns. Moreover, it strongly varies over
time. Taking these aspects into consideration, I have analyzed the use of expectations, their interlinkages, and their textual contexts in
the review articles over time. I show how the use of expectations turns from raising awareness to more complex strategies of building
fields while the epistemic diversity of field representations within these articles decreases.
Structure and type of expectations over time.

4.3.1. Structure and types of expectations over time 2002 - 2008

The review literature between 2002 and 2008 was dominated by what may be called “exemplificatory” review articles. Exem­
plificatory articles are a set of very few articles with a rather broad claim about the research field, where selected research was
presented in order to exemplify a criterion or to emphasize that a given approach appeared to be feasible.6 Referring to the terminology
of Budde and Konrad (2019), several of these articles contained landscape expectations in which visions of the field were related to a
broader societal trend. These are rather broad articulations of futures for synthetic biology. The following passage of Brenner and You
(2008) serves as an example:
In addition to `pushing the envelope´ of synthetic biology, with promising health, environmental, and industrial applications,
engineered microbia are potentially powerful and versatile tools for studying microbial interactions and evolution. (Brenner et al.,
2008, p. 488).
This demonstrates how in the first period collective expectations were used to raise awareness for the field employing abstract
visions. Reading the textual passage more closely reveals that these visionary claims are not embedded in a section discussing or
synthetizing scholarly literature. Structurally, this passage is placed in the conclusion section of the article.
Collective expectations are also employed to justify novel or to redefine existing scientific fields. The following passage shows how
the bioengineering paradigm is envisioned to contribute to a novel disciplinary interpretation of biology.
In biology, we have not yet reached a level of understanding where (…) models can be developed on a large scale and consequently,
true biological engineering is hardly possible until now (reference Endy 2005). In fact, in most cases today, we are faced with highly
uncertain or even unknown model topologies, mechanisms and parameters. The recent advances in the post-genomic research and
especially in systems biology, however, provide hope that sooner or later we will be able to draw on a body of knowledge that allows
for the envisioned directed engineering of biology. Ultimately, mathematical models developed for research purposes will be employed
as design models in synthetic biology (Heinemann & Panke, 2006, p. 2796).
The passage moves from stating insufficiencies of current biology to a not-so-distant future when modeling will allow for more
precise directed engineering. Although the authors claim it is only “recent advances” that are the first steps towards a “directed en­
gineering” of biology, a clear disciplinary vision is presented. Like other examples in the first period, expectations are loosely con­
nected across levels and remain, in this case, on the niche level.
In the corpus of review articles, such articles containing broad claims about re-disciplining biology become engines of describing
synthetic biology, as other reviewing work builds on those narratives. They coin the very notions on which other authors rely to
characterize the field, such as the notion of “engineering biology” introduced by Endy (2005) in a seminal review paper outlining the

6
See also Blümel (2016) for details.

6
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

principles. It is because of the visibility of these papers that other review papers can draw from their authority. For example, Lee et al.
(2008) cite the key engineering principles established by Endy (2005) and incorporate it into the description of synthetic biology.
Synthetic biology is an emerging field that aims to bring such engineering principles as modularization and componentization to
the manipulation of genetic circuitry in microorganisms, so that engineering an organism for fuel production is as easy as assembling a
computer (Lee et al., 2008, p. 560).
Yet, while there are certainly more review articles presenting ideas of the bioengineering community within synthetic biology in
this period, other communities also rely on visionary language, such as Benner and Sismour (2005) and Benner and Steven (2004), who
introduced synthetic biology as a chemical project with the idea that a novel interpretation of synthesis may guide the further
development within this field.
Together, these results are supporting the emerging field of synthetic biology. This field moves past biomimetic chemistry, seeking
artificial chemical systems that reproduce advanced biological behaviors, including replication, selection, and evolution (Benner and
Steven, 2004, p. 784).
In several highly cited review articles, key authors established and reinterpreted existing concepts of chemistry, such as synthesis as
a method to construct novel or minimal biological systems non-existent in nature, but also to further stimulate a specific chemistry-
inspired community building. The notion of chemical synthetic biology was coined to further emphasize this approach (Luisi & Pier
Luigi, 2007), drawing from innovations of biomimetics chemistry. Several innovation projects were initiated, including research
around the never born proteins, synthesis of simulated prebiotic evolution, and also the minimal cell project.
Other authors have taken up these ideas to explore protocells and the smallest units of life, referring to several of the basic ideas
investigating the origin of life (Luisi et al., 2006), which is why this approach is sometimes termed protocell research (O’Malley et al.,
2008; Raimbault et al., 2021). Data from my interviews show that several researchers perceived this chemical version of biology as a
legitimate alternative vision. And indeed, we find depictions of synthetic biology coming in various “flavors”; in a review in 2006,
Pleiss et al. (2006) describes this epistemic diversity by referring to this somewhat contested disciplinary state.
Synthetic biology comes in two flavors: inspired by chemistry or by engineering. From the perspective of a chemist, synthetic
biology comprises approaches to synthesize biomolecules, to develop synthetic analogs, and to apply them in the framework of
biological systems. One example is the design of orthogonal DNA or RNA systems (Benner and Steven, 2004; Benner & Sismour, 2005).
The engineering approach stresses the needs for advanced design principles (Pleiss, 2006, p. 736).
There are several programmatic and visionary review articles representing different perspectives of how the field should develop
and subsequent reviews have different ways in which they refer to these ideas. First, both communities - the chemical and protocell
community on the one hand, and the bioengineering community on the other - cite and refer to “their literature” particularly for their
key concepts (or principles). In both streams, key concepts of these communities are closely related to the emergence of the field of
synthetic biology. Second, however, other descriptive reviews state the existing diversity of these visions (such as Pleiss, 2006, cited
above). In part, my interviews reveal this interpretation as several of the interviewees perceive these reviews as ‘conceptual papers’
and not as review papers. This results in an epistemically diverse picture of synthetic biology in its early stages with different ex­
pectations presented in review papers, often only loosely coupled with ongoing research.
Further, another set of articles employs expectations more closely related to specific technologies and their societal or economic
use, such as new metabolic pathways for the generation of biofuels (Aijkumar et al., 2007; Dellomonaco 2008), or novel approaches for
constructing RNA molecules for pharmaceutical applications. These are referred to here as regime-level expectations as they refer to
the logics of a given industry or sector with a set of applications and associated processes.
Although the biopharmaceutical production using this novel engineering-driven biology is only beginning, the future promises are
visible: the advent of computational systems biology to dissect and analyze the complexity of the biosynthetic pathways and associated
control mechanisms, the creation of systematic enzyme classification schemes for the automated design of new pathways, de novo DNA
synthesis for the design and construction of DNA involved in the biosynthetic pathways, the application of de novo DNA evolutionary
methods for generating new functional enzymes, the design of well-characterized enzymatic pathways from genetic to proteomic level
and the assembly of the natural products biosynthetic pathways in easily cultured, productive hosts (Ajikumar et al., 2008).

Fig. 1. Structure of Expectations 2002–2008.

7
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

In this example of a regime expectation, synthetic biology technologies are presented referring to sector-specific applications. Even
though the technology is described as generic, it is the terminology of the industry which is used to describe attributes of the scientific
field. For instance, the aforementioned example focuses on biopharmaceutical production as a sector, making it plausible to frame
synthetic biology’s benefits in terms of “productivity and efficiency”. Some of the highly cited reviews in this period take the
perspective of these specific application-oriented realms, such as biofuels (Dellomonaco 2008), as their primary focus, but they do not
make claims regarding the institutionalization of the field.
Summarizing the structure, composition, and linkage of different expectation types, the first period can be characterized as follows,
as shown in Fig. 1. First, there are rather few and unspecific landscape expectations, highlighting societal needs on a very abstract level
that address a global audience by relying on universal arguments (scarcity of resources, unbounded human needs). These articulations
apparently serve the function of raising awareness for their ideas. Yet, these accounts of landscape expectations are rather isolated
within their respective scholarly texts. They also do not refer to other levels of expectations (such as regime-level expectations)
supporting their claims.
Moreover, some of these landscape expectations are at least loosely connected to accounts related to the institutionalization of
synthetic biology (indicated by directed arrows in Fig. 1), such as the development of novel concepts or principles of synthetic biology
(modularization, componentization, adapted understandings of synthesis). I also found expectations at the regime level, for instance
referring to the pharmaceutical or the biofuels sector, with promising societal or economic use of technologies. Yet these accounts
seldom relate to the institutionalization of synthetic biology as a research field and are not embedded in sections describing tech­
nological advances in more detail.
The corpus of review articles in the first phase is dominated by various technology-specific niche expectations that relate to very
concrete technological novelties. If we consider the structure of the expectations within the texts, the resulting network is rather loose,
with only few connections between the various levels of expectations. Analyzing the relationships between expectations and inno­
vation dynamics within the field, we can see that expectations relate to various research paths and epistemic and disciplinary ap­
proaches within the field, such as organic chemistry and information technology, with little connection to agenda-setting processes at
the niche level. This indicates that the field is epistemically diverse, with few signs of closure. Landscape-level expectations provide the
strongest support for institutionalizing the field of synthetic biology in this phase.

4.3.2. Structure and type of expectations after 2009

From 2009 onwards, however, we find more textual relations between expectations at different levels. In several of these passages,
expectations at these levels are closely tied to each other. Empirically, this was indicated by co-occurrences of codings for different
expectations within a given textual passage. Moreover, the textual structure of passages of review articles in which expectations are
mentioned are becoming more diverse and increasingly nested within narrative, classificatory, or evaluative reviewing practices. I
argue that, in that way, expectations are part of the narrative ordering of review articles. In the following paragraphs, I more sys­
tematically elaborate on these general patterns.
Particularly visible is more “relational work” of expectations at different levels in passages referring to landscape expectations in
the period from 2009 onwards. One such example is the following passage referring to expectations in the application field of
biotechnology.
The rising concerns related to the cost, sustained availability, and environmental impact of fossil fuels has led to the search for new
technologies that generate alternative fuels from renewable energy carbon sources. In light of these concerns, interest and investment
in the production of biofuels from renewable resources has grown significantly in recent years. This growth, combined with recent
advancements in biotechnology, has resulted in extensive research efforts to the microbial production of biofuels (Clomburg &
Gonzalez, 2010).
Here, grand societal problems such as climate change and resource availability are addressed as “rising concerns”, which, in
argumentative terms, are textual forces mobilizing and justifying searches at the sectoral level of fuel technologies (the concern “has
led to the search for new technologies”). At the sector or regime level, visions are articulated as “alternative fuels from renewable
energy carbon sources”. These visions are then closely linked to reviewing research for the microbial production of biofuels, which, in
terms of the framework (Budde & Konrad, 2019), could be understood as “niche-level expectation”. This shows how the different levels
of expectations are closely linked and mutually support each other. This article then deals more intensely with technologies to produce
biofuels, linking the visions of synthetic artefacts more closely to evaluative reviewing work, selecting valuable contributions in the
field.
A particularly strong tendency to combine landscape and regime level expectations was found within those articles that could be
termed as “history review articles”. These reviews describe the evolution of synthetic biology in such a way that they order events into
a coherent story of the field (see for instance Purnick & Weiss, 2009). A particular interesting example thereof is the following passage.
Our hope is that, in the second wave, synthetic biologists will formulate new and effective bioengineering design principles to
address these (societal) challenges. This will allow us to readily combine modules into complex synthetic pathways and thereby create
sophisticated cellular behaviors. Such systems-level bioengineering can synergistically target multiple pathways, symptoms or targets
— such as multiple cell populations or organs — creating the potential for innovative environmental and therapeutic applications
(Purnick & Weiss, 2009).
In this case, “new bioengineering design principles” are imagined to further push technological developments to address grand
societal challenges by what is called “systems-level bioengineering”. Purnick and Weiss (2009) apparently refer to the bioengineering
design principles of Endy (2005) as one of the inventors of first bioengineering principles, but they call for a stronger scaling up of
synthetic biology efforts. What we find here is a textual strategy to establish a novel narrative for the field as moving from simple

8
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

bio-bricks to complex structures and pathways, while existing research has (at least until to that moment) not led to such grand
biological structures.
Another example of a history review article that constructs a dominant representation of the field by selecting and presenting
specific events is the following, written ten years after the toggle switch, one of the most significant early tools of synthetic biology
(Gardner, 2000).
Ten years since the introduction of the field’s inaugural devices – the genetic toggle switch and repressilators, synthetic biologists
have successfully engineered a wide range of functionality into artificial gene circuits, creating switches, oscillators, digital logic (…)
filters, sensors, and cell-cell communicators. Some of these engineered gene networks have been applied to perform useful tasks such as
population control, decision making for whole-cell biosensors, genetic timing for fermentation processes and image processing.
Synthetic biologists have even begun to address important medical and industrial problems with engineered organisms (…). However,
in most application driven cases, engineered organisms contain only simple gene circuits that do not fully exploit the potential of
synthetic biology. There remains a fundamental disconnect between low-level circuitry and the promise of assembling gene networks
that exhibit robust, predictable behaviours. (Lu et al., 2009, p. 1139).
This example establishes a critical perspective towards expectations in the field raised about capabilities to design systems for a
specific behavior. Textually, it is directly linked to reviewing work, comparing outcomes of conducted studies with proposed ex­
pectations and establishes some disappointment about what has been achieved. By doing so, the article clearly establishes a research
perspective to which others can refer. This shows that in the second phase studied here, more critical perspectives towards niche-level
expectations are established.
While these perspectives are critical, they present the field’s innovation dynamic rather one-sidedly from the perspective of the
bioengineering- and electrical engineering-inspired strand within synthetic biology with its major objects (repressilators, oscillators,
switches). As such, descriptions tend to conceal some of the epistemic diversity and competing expectations at the niche level. This
suggests that the presentation of synthetic biology in these articles becomes more homogeneous. While in the first period fewer, less
cited articles present the diversity of the field (Pleiss, 2006; Luisi & Pier Luigi, 2007), such presentations have almost disappeared, at
least in direct relation with the term of synthetic biology. On the discourse level of niche expectations, the engineering path becomes
the dominant representation.
It is also evident that expectations are increasingly embedded in the main body of the review articles, not only in the conclusion
section. Hence, they are also more strongly linked to practices of narrative ordering. This also allows different regime-level expec­
tations to be linked and presented in a textual order.
Here, we review the practical applications of synthetic biology in biosensing, therapeutics and the production of biofuels, phar­
maceuticals and novel biomaterials. Many of the examples herein do not fit exclusively or neatly into only one of these three appli­
cation categories; however, it is precisely this multivalent applicability that makes synthetic biology platforms so powerful and
promising (Khalil & Collins, 2010, p. 367).
These different regime-level expectations in the pharmaceutical, biofuels and biomaterials sectors are now linked and discussed
more intensely by a technique of narrative ordering that Mary Morgan described as colligation, “ a way of how a scientist both brings
together and assembles, a set of similar elements under some overall guiding conception, or categorization schema” (Morgan, 2017, p.
89). Different sectoral dynamics are presented under the guiding concept of applications without specifying “ (…) what made it or­
dered” in that way (ibid, p. 89). Such linkages between different regime-level expectations were not apparent in the first period.
Thereby, the field’s societal and economical relevance is supported. Even far-reaching visions for applying the field’s knowledge to
clinical therapies are established.
Ultimately, we envision synthetic constructs that can sense and seek out aberrant conditions, remediate clinical insult, and restore
function. Clearly, there is much to do before synthetic biology can realize its full clinical potential, but the examples discussed here
provide insight into the field’s exciting potential for helping to prevent and treat disease (Ruder et al., 2011).
Here, Ruder et al. (2011) establish visions of synthetic biology in the context of therapy development, linking it to terminologies of
the bioengineering community: “(…) Effective synthetic biology therapies are being rationally designed and implemented as researchers
build constructs” (Ruder et al., 2011). To emphasize the significance of these expectations, the use of “potential” is particularly strong;
it links field-specific engineering capabilities with the future needs of the health sector for “restoring functions”. Yet the textual use of
“potential” also conceals a lot of uncertainty. What kind of potential is meant and how the field could contribute is not described in
more detail. The textual passage is typical for the use of the concept of “potential” in this corpus and shows patterns of linkages
between niche- and regime-level expectations. Other passages even make connections between different sectors and technology realms
as in the following example.
Synthetic biology may enable the discovery of novel biomaterials and the cell-based synthesis of useful biomaterials. The ability to
manipulate genetically the sequence and structure of biomaterials enables both rational and evolutionary strategies to be applied.
Furthermore, the diversity of biological processes is a large source of new biomaterials with properties that can outperform synthetic
materials (Cheng & Lu, 2012, p. 172).
This passage describes the future contribution of synthetic biology to the development of a specific field of application, the pro­
duction of biomaterials. In particular, the capacity to change the attributes of biological materials genetically is described as a basis for
future applications. To persuade the reader of the envisioned future ability, relationships between different technologies are described
in more detail, such as different strategies for genetic manipulation. Hence, from 2009 onwards, we find in the passages mentioning
expectations that these futures are more closely related to each other. That occurs in relation to not only the futures of different fields
and technologies, but also the different levels of expectations (e.g., niche, regime, landscape). Several texts target a specific techno­
logical regime, such as the production of biomaterials.

9
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

If we map these different uses of expectations and their relationships on different levels in the second period, we tend to find a
pattern of a hierarchically organized network of expectations. Fig. 2 shows this pattern in condensed form. We find that relationships
between different types of expectations - indicated by co-occurrences within particular textual passages - are more widespread in these
review articles than in the first period. Sixty-five textual passages in this period contained more than one type of expectation. Yet the
linkages between the different expectation levels rose compared to the first set of articles. This increase occurred in particular for
linkages between expectations on the regime level, which could not be found in the first period. However, we also find cross-level
linkages, that is, linkages between different levels of expectations. For instance, landscape expectations such as climate change and
energy scarcity are increasingly articulated and linked to expectations on the regime level. Textually, it is often argued that such
landscape expectations would make novel search strategies and visions at the sectoral level necessary. Such uses of landscape ex­
pectations are more widespread in review articles in the second period than in the first. Seemingly, the increasing accounts of
landscape expectations and the increasing linkages on the sectoral level are accompanied with and affected by calls for more systemic
intersectoral changes. What is more, these notions of systemic changes are also taken up in niche expectations of the scientific field,
where notions of systems-level bioengineering are established that would create “potential for innovation environmental applica­
tions”. Hence, these cross-level linkages between heterogenous forms of expectations are meant to support niche expectations of
synthetic biology and further contribute to the discursive stabilization of the field.
Unlike in the first period, however, this diversity in articulating expectations is not related to epistemic diversity. Rather, cross-
level-linkages of expectations on the landscape and the regime level work to support specific and established research paths within
synthetic biology, i.e., the bioengineering path. Here we see how combined expectations support a specific research path and
apparently lead to the stabilization of innovation dynamics. This pattern is even strengthened by means of so called “history review
articles”, that aim at identifying major events of the field (Blümel, 2021). This results in the generation of expectations that tend to
reproduce narratives of engineering biology rather than the chemical version of synthetic biology.
Looking more closely at how and where expectations are placed within the review articles, we find that they are no longer isolated
accounts in the conclusion or introduction. Increasingly, they are in the main body of the articles. Expectations of the niche and
sectoral level are incorporated in textual practices of ordering, that is, in sections categorizing and evaluating research, and lead to
novel linkages of research. In this way, expectations can more easily be mobilized for agenda-setting processes and can further
contribute to institutionalizing the field. I have tried to capture this development in Fig. 2 by marking the increase of scholarly context
in this phase. The role of review articles in the formation of collective expectations and relationships to innovation paths within the
field is described in the next section.

5. Discussion

This analysis has shown that review articles are a valuable resource for studying expectations. Which lessons for how expectations
are used in scholarly review articles can be learnt from this study? First, looking at the diversity of passages containing visionary
elements and at the corpus of review articles, what is striking is the great stylistic variance in review articles. The articles differ in
textual structure and style and so do visionary accounts. This corresponds to the large variety of review types in scholarly literature.
Different to classic research articles, reviews are much more diverse and less standardized (Azar & Hashim, 2014). Such diversity is
also observed here. Review articles differ strongly in length, style, and purpose. Yet a temporal pattern is visible at least with respect to
which types of review articles resonate particularly well in the community. While several conceptual review articles published in the
early period were highly cited, in the latter period it tended to be history review articles that gained prominence.
These typological differences have consequences for the use of expectations within these texts and their functions. Several con­
ceptual review papers published in the early years of field formation employed far-reaching expectations to raise awareness for new
linkages between biology, engineering, and chemistry that created spaces for the novel, but diverse, field. In the second phase, other
types of review articles indicate more maturity, as history review articles increasingly referred to rather stable representations of the
field. The analysis shows that the textual exploration of expectations may take advantage of conceptual and methodological advances
in genre studies (Swales & Naijar, 1987). Genre analysis has turned attention to the structural composition of scholarly texts. The
textual location (positioning) of arguments matters, as it may reflect their relevance for the claim an author wants to make. In that

Fig. 2. Structure of expectations in 2009–2012 review articles.

10
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

regard, it is striking to see that we observed changes over time in the corpus. Expectations appeared more often in introductory and
concluding sections of the review articles in the first phase (2002–2008). This indicates that the uses of expectations in the first phase
are rather aimed at raising awareness of and seemingly increasing the relevance of the field. In the later period, however, expectations
were tied to the construction of specific categories and were more directly related to comments on primary research.
The analysis of expectations also shows the dynamics of synthetic biology as a research field and its various representations and
innovation paths. In the first phase, different paths emerged and the respective disciplinary communities communicated their visions
of how the field should develop, resulting in a diverse and unsettled picture. One innovation path emerged from chemistry, with the
goal of developing artificial chemical systems reproducing complex biological functions, such as Darwinian evolution. The second
strongly established path relied on a prospective structure linking the development of novel infrastructures (such as the library of parts
at MIT) with engineering methods of rational design and modeling. Key concepts and principles were introduced and shared widely in
review articles, which have subsequently been taken up and further enriched. The expectations of this ‘bioengineering” community
within synthetic biology were supported by implementations of several smaller devices, such as toggle switches, oscillators, or logic
gates implemented in genetic circuits, showing the general feasibility of engineered biology.
The analysis of review articles reveals that both paths were visible as competing paths on how to further develop the field. The
corpus of review articles reflects the epistemic diversity and plurality by, for instance, stating the field would come in different
“flavors” (Pleiss, 2006). Key review papers of both communities were published visibly. Apparently with commercial success of
Artemisin, though extremely costly, public support shifted more strongly to the bioengineering community and visions of a novel
bioeconomy flourished (Hilgartner, 2015). The project has also strengthened the links to metabolic engineering - a research field
particularly relevant for designing metabolic pathways - and supported ideas of design in biology. According to my interviewees,
policy discourse also affected the representations of the field:
The government what came out of the Obama White Hose was: we will stop calling what we’re doing Synthetic biology. And
everybody shall call what they’re doing engineering biology. So that’s what happened (Prof_SynBio_2021_1).
Other central community devices for synthetic biology, such as key conferences or the International Genetically Engineered Ma­
chine (iGEM) competition, also supported the ideas of ‘making biology easy to engineer”, particularly among younger students. At least
publicly, synthetic biology was now more strongly linked to the innovation path of bioengineering, although projects of minimal
genomes or minimal cells still gained public visibility.
Consequently, the review literature also reflects and simultaneously supports this stabilization of bioengineering at the expense of
the chemistry path. The more widespread use and the evolving linkages of the landscape and regime level expectations supported
particularly the bioengineering research stream within synthetic biology. Review articles thus played a role in the formation and
growing complexity of collective expectations as they served as resonance chambers supporting the societal relevance of bioengi­
neering. Hence, the discussion among the review articles reflects a growing discursive hegemony of bioengineering concepts. Chemical
innovation projects are still conducted and gain prominence particularly in Europe, where bottom-up synthetic biology rises strongly.
According to interviewees, however, researchers in active, bottom-up, synthetic biology report they struggle with the dominant
representation, at least after 2009:
And whenever I go to that meeting, I’m also (…), together with classical synthetic biologists, people who are really (sic!) in
genetically modified cells, which is what most people, particularly people outside of science, think of when they think of synthetic
biology”. (Group_Leader_SynBio_2021_1).
To put it simply, the heterogeneity on the regime and landscape level corresponds with homogeneity on the niche level. This was
even more stabilized by the increasing emergence of history review articles in which milestones of the field were mainly presented as
supporting the engineering biology narrative and its main terminologies (modularization, componentization, rational design)
(Cameron et al., 2014).
The analysis of expectations also points at other dynamics in this emerging science and technology field. In the second period, more
and different application areas were not only vaguely envisioned, but more specifically described in review articles. Regime-level
expectations were more closely linked to technology developments, taking stock of the rising efficiency generated by novel
sequencing tools, but also in combination with tools ascribed to synthetic biology. Though a focus on applications in the realm of fuel
cells was also visible among the review literature in the first period, it became much more profound later, also with stronger links to
technology development, linking the field also to application fields in biomaterials and therapeutics. Reviews of this type aimed at
establishing the broad applicability of technological developments within the field, though expectations of large, easily-configured
biosystems were disappointed (Kwok, 2010). Review articles reviewing whole application areas became more accepted and some
review papers even envisioned direct uses for clinical therapies. According to interviewees, who authored some of the highly cited
review articles in that time, the turn to applications reflected policy change. At least in the US, synthetic biology was much more
oriented toward applications in that period than was intended by the initial founders of bioengineering. See the following remark from
the author of a highly cited review article.
They tend to be overdriven [sic] by the urgency of application (…). In 2003 and 2004, we helped MIT, mostly what we were trying
to do was create cultural space for people to celebrate the fundamental science and engineering work necessary to get systematically
better at partnering with living matter in general (Prof_SynBio_2).
Moreover, the increase of sector-specific expectations indicates industry demand over the period, particularly in the energy and
mobility sector with the rise of expectations related to biofuels in synthetic biology. We can also see that some notions of sector-specific
transition systems within and across sectors correspond to novel terminologies for describing the goals of the field as systems-level
bioengineering (Purnick & Weiss, 2009). The rising number of regime-level expectations also indicates the increasing diversity of
actors interested in innovations of the technology or addressed by scholars within the field. The field of synthetic biology increasingly

11
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

attracts actors from rather different realms, such as investors, corporations from pharmaceutical industry or the health sector, but may
have lost diversity in presenting the field to outsiders.

6. Conclusion

The material shows that review articles in synthetic biology contain many different narrative accounts of future developments.
Drawing from advances of the sociology of expectations (Budde & Konrad, 2019), I was able to study the heterogeneity and inter­
relation of expectation levels employed in the review articles.
First, the analysis has shown that expectations were used to raise awareness and mobilize support for the field of synthetic in the
review articles. However, the configuration of expectations in strategies of mobilizing support have changed throughout the period
studied here. While in the earlier years, expectations focused on establishing guiding principles, support in the second period was
mobilized by relating expectations of the landscape level with expectations on the regime level to establish the relevance of tech­
nologies created within the field. Thus, the ses of expectations changed over time. Potential changes in the policy environment were
also indicated by the increase of landscape expectations in the second period, which particularly highlighted the scarcity of (energy)
resources and demand for change in the health sector. The influence of policy debates on the uptake of (bio-)engineering was validated
by interviews and revealed the ways in which review papers reflect such changes.
Second, over time, I observed a growing heterogeneity of expectations and particularly linkages between them. In the reviews
published between 2002 and 2008, regime expectations highlighting sectoral changes were less often observed. Linkages between
different regime-level expectations were almost absent, while in the second period (2009–2012), they were more intensely established
and discussed. In the second period, these regime level expectations were also employed to structure and establish spaces for research,
indicating a changing function of the review articles for field formation that was much more directed towards agenda-setting.
I argue that the increasing uptake of sectoral expectations may also reflect industry dynamics (for instance, in the realm of energy
industry). On the niche level of expectations, less competing visions could be identified, reflecting a decrease in the representation of
epistemic diversity of the field on the discourse level. This observation is even strengthened by considering the kind of niche in­
novations that are supported by the expectations on the landscape and regime levels. These innovations are, in most cases, stabilizing
concepts of the bioengineering community within synthetic biology, while synthetic biology consists of many more epistemic tribes
highlighted by Deplazes (2009) and Raimbault et al., (2021, 2016). Thirdly, these dynamics among niche innovation coincide with
novel types of reviewing, giving way to more history-oriented types of review articles that support the view of specific major events of
the field (Blümel, 2021). In terms of field dynamics, this suggests that the stabilization of the field has led to a dominant narrative of
engineering, which is also shared among policy actors, as Hilgartner’s (2015) study revealed.
Fourthly, the pattern of increasingly linking expectations at different levels is accompanied by emerging practices of integrating
these expectations in the ordering practices of the review articles. Sectoral expectations, for instance, become building blocks for
constructing categories of sections within the review articles, making the articulation an integral part of the reviews’ main bodies.
I argue that these findings complement existing research on the use of expectations in emerging scholarly fields with respect to
review articles. Merkerk and Robinson (2006) argued that expectation structures increasingly develop into „emerging irreversibilities“
if they are closely related to research agendas, allowing for the generation of a leitmotiv for the research field. According to Merkerk and
Robinson (2006), these are often to be found in review articles at early stages. The analysis of the review articles presented here adds to
that picture: it is only with increasing interrelation of visions with practices of evaluating and problematizing existing research that
research agendas can enact their persuasive character.
The use of expectations may therefore be related to more general attributes of reviewing work, which Bastide et al. (1989) termed
programmatic. Exploring reviewing work in the field of polymer science, they argued that substantial parts of that work were pro­
grammatic in that it was “linking two sets of researches and preoccupations that, at the moment when the reviews were published, had
not been systematically and satisfactorily related” (Bastide et al., 1989, p. 547). As a result, review articles were more likely to contain
research programs, which are defined as a „series of hierarchized problems whose resolution is considered to be crucial to the future of
the domain” (Bastide et al., 1989, p. 555).
Comparing these findings with the structure of textual relationships in my corpus of review articles, the patterns of strategic ac­
counts (accounts of research trends, identified research problems, etc.) co-occurring within visionary passages indicate that research
programs in the sense defined are closely related to visions at different levels both within and beyond the research field. One argument
for this interpretation is that I find a strong co-occurrence for codings of synthetizing work particularly since 2009, which is also
accompanied by a stronger frequency of visions at all levels.
By more closely exploring these interrelationships between textual organization and visionary articulation (that is, the different
expectation levels) the mechanisms of agenda-setting become more apparent. These textual mechanisms may make what Merkerk and
Robinson (2006) have called the agenda-setting function of review articles more comprehensible. The research presented here also
adds to Bitsch and Stemerding’s (2013) work, in which they traced the innovation journey of genomics and asthma research by
exploring review articles in the field. They also found that, over time, emerging irreversibilities shaped the progress of the field, such as
the vision that genes could change the direction of research within asthma, while novel genetic methodologies apparently could not
fulfil that expectation (ibid., p. 1176).
More abstractly, this contribution shows how expectations are embedded in practices of scholarly writing. Scholars appear to use
taken for granted knowledge about techno-societal futures (futures of socio-technologies, sectors, or scientific fields) to justify the
relevance of their intellectual niche. Based on the dynamics of expectations described by Konrad (2006) and Konrad and Böhle (2019),
further empirical research could explore how such shared visions are changed and transformed during the translation process between

12
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

scholarly outlets and formats addressing wider audiences. Changes in the sectoral expectations in the scholarly literature could, for
instance, be studied in comparison to the dynamics in the policy realm in order examine how expectations articulated by scholars are
shaped by dynamics of discourses among policy actors.
Finally, the results also imply how future studies may benefit from linguistics and genre studies. By drawing on approaches of genre
studies, textual practices of argumentation and their structuration related to recurring communicative expectations become apparent.
Future studies may benefit from explorations taking into account the shaping of writing from genre expectations and genre-specific
opportunity structures. The interpretations presented here point to how visions and anticipations as a textual practice are
embedded in or related to practices of narrative ordering in scholarly texts.

Funding acknowledgement

This research was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant number 01PU17017.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Ajikumar, P. K., Tyo, K., Carlsen, S., Mucha, O., Phon, T. H., & Stephanopoulos, G. (2008). Terpenoids: opportunities for biosynthesis of natural product drugs using
engineered microorganisms. Molecular Pharmaceutics, 5(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1021/mp700151b
Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2014). Towards an analysis of review article in applied linguistics: its classes, purposes and characteristics. English Language Teaching, 7(10).
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n10p76
Bastide, F., Courtial, J. P., & Callon, M. (1989). The use of review articles in the analysis of a research area. Scientometrics, 15, 535–562.
Benner, S. A. [S. A.], & Sismour, A. M. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 533–543.
Benner, S. A., & [Steven, A.] (2004). Understanding nucleic acids using synthetic chemistry. Accounts of Chemical Research, 37(10), 784–797. https://doi.org/
10.1021/ar040004z
Bensaude Vincent, B. (2013). Discipline-building in synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of
Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.007.
Bitsch, L., & Stemerding, D. (2013). The innovation journey of genomics and asthma research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(8), 1164–1180. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9566.12028
Blümel, C. (2016). Enrolling the toggle switch: visionary claims and the capability of modeling objects in the disciplinary formation of synthetic biology. NanoEthics,
10(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0276-z
Blümel, C. (2021). What Synthetic Biology aims at: Review articles narrating a scientific field. In K. Kastenhofer, & S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Eds.), Springer eBook
Collection: Vol. 31. Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences (1st ed..,). Cham: Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer.
Blümel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2020). Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda. Scientometrics. Advance online publication,.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management., 18(3/
4), 285–298.
Brenner, K., You, L., & Arnold, F. H. (2008). Engineering microbial consortia: A new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends in Biotechnology, 26(9), 483–489. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.05.004
Brown, M., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000). Contested Futures.: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brown, N. (2003). A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18.
Budde, B., & Konrad, K. (2019). Tentative governing of fuel cell innovation in a dynamic network of expectations. Research Policy, 48(5), 1098–1112. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.007
Cameron, E. D., Bashor, C. J., & Collins, J. J. (2014). A brief history of synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 381–390.
Campos, L. (2009). That was the synthetic biology that was. In M. Schmidt, A. Krelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra, & H. de Vriend (Eds.), Synthetic Biology: The Technoscience and
its Societal Consequences (pp. 5–21). Heidelberg: Springer.
Cheng, A. A., & Lu, T. K. (2012). Synthetic biology: an emerging engineering discipline. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14, 155–178. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150118
Clomburg, J. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Biofuel production in Escherichia coli: the role of metabolic engineering and synthetic biology. Applied Microbiology and
Biotechnology, 86(2), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2446-1
Deplazes, A. (2009). Piecing together a puzzle: an exposition of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 428–432.
Fisher, O. Z., Khademhosseini, A., Langer, R., & Peppas, N. A. (2010). Bioinspired materials for controlling stem cell fate. Accounts of Chemical Research, 43(3),
419–428. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar900226q
Gardner, T. S., et al. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature, 403, 339–342.
Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 12757-1274.
Hartwell, L. H., Hopfield, J. J., Leibler, S. A., & Murry, A. W. (1999). From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature, 402, C47–C52.
Hedgecoe, A., & Martin, P. (2003). The drugs dont work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 327–364.
Heinemann, M., & Panke, S. (2006). Synthetic biology - putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics, 22(22), 2790–2799.
Hilgartner, S. (2015). Capturing the imaginary. Vanguards, visions and the synthetic biology revolution. In S. Hilgartner, C. Miller, & R. Hagendijk (Eds.), Science and
Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond (pp. 33–55). Routledge.
Kastenhofer, K. (2013). Synthetic biology as understanding, control, construction, and creation? Techno-epistemic and socio-political implications of different stances
in talking and doing technoscience. Futures, 48, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.001
Khalil, A. S., & Collins, J. J. (2010). Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2775
Konrad, K. (2006). The social dynamics of expectations:: the interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive
television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 429–444.
Kozinets, R. V. (2019). YouTube utopianism: social media profanation and the clicktivism of capitalist critique. Journal of Business Research, 98, 65–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.019
Kwok, R. (2010). Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature, 463, 288–290. https://doi.org/10.1038/463288a
Lee, S. K., Chou, H., Ham, T. S., Lee, T. S., & Keasling, J. D. (2008). Metabolic engineering of microorganisms for biofuels production: From bugs to synthetic biology
to fuels. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 19(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2008.10.014

13
C. Blümel Futures 155 (2024) 103302

Lu, T. K., Khalil, A. S., & Collins, J. J. (2009). Next-generation synthetic gene networks. Nature Biotechnology, 27(12), 1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1591
Luisi, P. L. [P. L.], Chiarabelli, C., & Stano, P. (2006). From never born proteins to minimal living cells: two projects in synthetic biology. Origins of Life and Evolution of
Biospheres, 36, 605–616.
Luisi, P. L., & [Pier Luigi]. (2007). Chemical aspects of synthetic biology. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 4(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200790053
Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Meyer, M. (2009). Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making. BioSocieties, 4(2-3), 129–145. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990019
Morgan, M. S. (2017). Narrative ordering and explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 62, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.006
Myers, G. (1991). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In C. Bazerman, & Paradis (Eds.), Textual Dynamics and the Professions: Historical and
Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities (p. 45). Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
O’Malley, M., Powell, A., Davies, J., & Calvert, J. (2008). Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. Bioessays, 30, 57–65.
Oldham, P., Hall, S., Burton, G., & Gilbert, J. A. (2012). Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS ONE, 7(4), Article e34368. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0034368
Pei, L., Gaisser, S., & Schmidt, M. (2012). Synthetic biology in the view of European public funding organisations. Public Understanding of Science, 21(2), 149–162.
Pleiss, J. (2006). The promise of synthetic biology. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 73(4), 735–739. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/35635113/
The_promise_of_synthetic_biology.
Purnick, P., & Weiss, R. (2009). The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 10, 410–422.
Raimbault, B., Cointet, J.‑P., & Joly, P.‑B. (2016). Mapping the emergence of synthetic biology. PLoS ONE, 11(9), Article e0161522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0161522
Raimbault, B., Joly, P.‑B., & [Pierre-Benoît]. (2021). The emergence of technoscientific fields and the new political sociology of science. In K. Kastenhofer, &
S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Eds.) (1st ed..,,Springer eBook Collection: Vol. 31. Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences (1st ed..,, Vol. 31, pp. 85–106).
Cham: Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61728-8_4.
Ruder, W. C., Lu, T., & Collins, J. J. (2011). Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science, 333(6047), 1248–1252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206843
Shapira, P., Kwon, S., & Youtie, J. (2017). Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1439–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-
2452-5
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: institutional and strategic approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev., 20(3), 571–610.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., & Naijar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4(2), 175–191.
Van Merkerk, R., & Robinson, D. (2006). Characterizing the Emergence of a Technological Field: Expectations, Agendas and Networks in Lab-on-a-chip Technologies.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3/4), 411–428.
Woodward, A. (1974). Review literature: characteristics, sources and output in 1972. ASLIB Proceedings, 26, 367–376.

14