Experience Seamless Full Ebook Downloads for Every Genre at textbookfull.

com

Synthetic Biology 2020 Frontiers in Risk Analysis

and Governance Benjamin D. Trump

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-
biology-2020-frontiers-in-risk-analysis-and-governance-
benjamin-d-trump/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Explore and download more ebook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Systems Biology Application in Synthetic Biology 1st

Edition Shailza Singh (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/systems-biology-application-in-
synthetic-biology-1st-edition-shailza-singh-eds/

textboxfull.com

Synthetic Biology Jeffrey Carl Braman

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-biology-jeffrey-carl-
braman/

textboxfull.com

Computational Methods in Synthetic Biology Mario Andrea

Marchisio

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-methods-in-synthetic-
biology-mario-andrea-marchisio/

textboxfull.com

Synthetic biology Volume 2 Maxim Ryadnov

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-biology-volume-2-maxim-
ryadnov/

textboxfull.com
Synthetic Biology of Cyanobacteria Weiwen Zhang

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-biology-of-cyanobacteria-
weiwen-zhang/

textboxfull.com

Risk Analysis and Governance in EU Policy Making and

Regulation An Introductory Guide 1st Edition Bernardo
Delogu (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/risk-analysis-and-governance-in-eu-
policy-making-and-regulation-an-introductory-guide-1st-edition-
bernardo-delogu-auth/
textboxfull.com

Computational Methods in Synthetic Biology 2nd Edition

Mario Andrea Marchisio

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-methods-in-synthetic-
biology-2nd-edition-mario-andrea-marchisio/

textboxfull.com

Synthetic Biology Methods and Protocols Methods in

Molecular Biology 2760 2nd Edition Braman Jeffrey Carl Edt

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-biology-methods-and-
protocols-methods-in-molecular-biology-2760-2nd-edition-braman-
jeffrey-carl-edt/
textboxfull.com

Synthetic Biology Omics Tools and Their Applications

Shailza Singh

https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-biology-omics-tools-and-
their-applications-shailza-singh/

textboxfull.com
Risk, Systems and Decisions

Benjamin D. Trump
Christopher L. Cummings
Jennifer Kuzma
Igor Linkov Editors

Synthetic
Biology 2020:
Frontiers in Risk
Analysis and
Governance
Risk, Systems and Decisions

Series Editors
Igor Linkov
U.S. Army ERDC, Vicksburg, MS, USA
Jeffrey Keisler
College of Management, University of Massachusetts
Boston, MA, USA
James H. Lambert
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Jose Figueira
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
Health, environment, security, energy, technology are problem areas where man-­
made and natural systems face increasing demands, giving rise to concerns which
touch on a range of firms, industries and government agencies. Although a body of
powerful background theory about risk, decision, and systems has been generated
over the last several decades, the exploitation of this theory in the service of tackling
these systemic problems presents a substantial intellectual challenge. This book
series includes works dealing with integrated design and solutions for social,
technological, environmental, and economic goals. It features research and
innovation in cross-disciplinary and transdisciplinary methods of decision analysis,
systems analysis, risk assessment, risk management, risk communication, policy
analysis, economic analysis, engineering, and the social sciences. The series
explores topics at the intersection of the professional and scholarly communities of
risk analysis, systems engineering, and decision analysis. Contributions include
methodological developments that are well-suited to application for decision makers
and managers.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13439

Benjamin D. Trump • Christopher L. Cummings
Jennifer Kuzma • Igor Linkov
Editors

Synthetic Biology 2020:

Frontiers in Risk Analysis
and Governance
Editors
Benjamin D. Trump Christopher L. Cummings
US Army Engineer Research and Nanyang Technological University
Development Center Singapore, Singapore
Vicksburg, MS, USA
Igor Linkov
Jennifer Kuzma US Army Engineer Research
North Carolina State University and Development Center
Raleigh, NC, USA Vicksburg, MS, USA

ISSN 2626-6717     ISSN 2626-6725 (electronic)

Risk, Systems and Decisions
ISBN 978-3-030-27263-0    ISBN 978-3-030-27264-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Anna, who made this work possible.
~From Benjamin
Foreword

Engineered biological systems save and improve human lives every day. These ben-
efits currently come largely via the healthcare field in the form of human insulin and
other therapeutics produced in culture vessels or through agriculture in the form of
improved crops. However, products generated by engineering biology are being
explored and adopted by a wide array of industries, ranging from data storage to fast
food. You can now buy an Impossible BurgerTM containing yeast-based heme, the
red, iron containing, component of blood, at Burger KingTM.
As these applications of technology grow, and the tools and techniques for engi-
neering biology become more sophisticated and distributed. The International
Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition is a bellwether of the field. In
its first 13 years of existence, it grew from 31 participants in five teams to 5400
participants in 310 teams coming from six continents. While traditional players
such as the United States and China still dominate this event, a map illustrating the
geographic diversity of this group illustrates how truly global this technology has
become (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1RwdyeHgNKpViw10ITP
Lses203JU).
The power and distribution of this technology increases the possibility that it will
be subverted to cause harm. To ensure that this does not happen, it is essential that
the practitioner community becomes and remains engaged with the security world,
policy makers, and the general public. It is also critical that they learn to view their
own research through the lens of those charged with protecting us all. There are a
number of mechanisms and forums that can be used to facilitate this communication
and learning. You hold in your hand one such tool.
The authors have assembled herein a valuable array of references and perspec-
tives to highlight issues stemming from developing and bringing engineered bio-
logical systems to market. The chapters range from individual case studies to
general analyses of the field. Each contains ideas and/or examples of how risk anal-
yses and governance structures can or have been used to ensure that an engineered
biological product or process has been vetted for consumer safety.
With issues ranging from the food-versus-fuel debate that surrounds the use of
corn for the production of ethanol to who should be able to purchase synthetic DNA

vii
viii Foreword

encoding deadly viruses, it is obvious that there is no one answer or approach to

governing biotechnology. However, the case studies and background provided in
this book provide touchpoints for many of the most important topics studied to date.
I hope that researchers use this reference to assess and contextualize their work and
that other stakeholders, including the general public, utilize it as a starting point to
understanding the breadth of approaches that engineering biology community uses
to assess the implications of their work.

Jeffrey “Clem” Fortman

Engineering Biology Research Consortium
Emeryville, CA, USA
Foreword

Synthetic biology today is at a critical inflection point. The stakes have never been
higher. Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance is a
particularly timely and insightful book with significant implications for the future
trajectory of synthetic biology.
This ambitious volume comes at a significant juncture not only for how we think
about synthetic biology but also for how we act to shape its future. The promise of
synthetic biology for making the world a better place is dazzling, but so too are the
risks, governance issues, and other difficult societal choices that will have to be
made under conditions of uncertainty in order to realize its promise responsibly.
These issues only have become even harder, more complex, and important for all
stakeholders over the last two decades. They are the subjects of this impres-
sive volume.
A few of us are old enough to remember the “two cultures” debate advanced by
noted British scientist and novelist C.P. Snow in Two Cultures and Scientific
Revolution based on his Rede Lectures in 1959. For several decades after, it was a
required reading in university classes and was broadly discussed in many settings.
In essence, Snow posited that a societal divide existed between the sciences and the
humanities (and, by implication, the social sciences, too) and that this created a rate-­
limiting obstacle to solving many of the world’s societal challenges of the time.
Synthetic biology, in its initial two decades, has been unusual among transforma-
tive emerging technologies in addressing updated versions of the “two cultures”
debate. First, from the outset, it has forged a diverse “community culture” that
includes ethicists and religious scholars, social scientists, varied publics, and some
thoughtful skeptics as active participants.
Second, as this volume makes clear, “unlike other innovations in the past, syn-
thetic biology has not been insulated from social science inquiry during the innova-
tion process.” Nontechnical considerations, such as ELSI issues and public
engagement, have played a significant role from the outset.
Third, most leading scientists, engineers, designers, and business innovators in
synthetic biology accept both the legitimacy and urgency of addressing difficult
questions about uncertainty, risk, governance, security, transparency, and public

ix
x Foreword

acceptance as essential building blocks for synthetic biology. Many of them were
influenced by how addressing ELSI issues early on played a constructive role in
enabling the initial human genome revolution. Older members of the community
also witnessed the implications of failing to address them in a timely way during the
GMO controversies. Treating ethics, governance, or other societal concerns merely
as afterthoughts or second-order problems undermines trust and public acceptance
and can introduce rate-limiting obstacles to new research and the pace of innovation.
One reason that Synthetic Biology 2020 is so significant and timely is its forward-­
looking focus on how to integrate new social science insights and more nuanced and
context-specific considerations of risk, governance, and societal implications into
the research and innovation process as new applications of synthetic biology prolif-
erate in diverse domains. It also builds on important earlier social science work by
Oye, Frow, Maynard, Florin, and others about the need for adaptive and anticipatory
approaches. The editors have assembled a diverse set of perspectives that address
decision making and societal choices for the expanding range of applications in
synthetic biology.
Synthetic biology offers the promise to deliver solutions to a broad range of
twenty-first-century societal grand challenges, to make biology easier to engineer
for beneficial purposes, to enable more predictive and reliable applications of biol-
ogy, and to support sustainable economic growth, including the expanding bioecon-
omy. But none of these benefits will be realized without a broadly accepted decision
making that includes considerations of risk and uncertainty, governance and trans-
parency, public trust, and trustworthiness.
The chapters that follow make a compelling case for shared collective responsi-
bilities, adaptive and participatory governance and transparency, and more innova-
tive and inclusive approaches to risk analysis and assessments, decision-making,
and stakeholder involvement.
I first encountered synthetic biology in the spring of 2003 while serving on an
MIT Corporation Committee. We received a short briefing about interesting courses
and projects undertaken during MIT’s Independent Activities Period (IAP) in
January 2003. One immediately commanded my attention and ended up redirecting
my own interests and activities in the intervening 16 years.
The course was called Synthetic Biology Lab: Engineered Genetic Blinkers.
Offered to only 16 MIT students, it promised a “hands-on introduction to the design
and fabrication of synthetic biology systems” based on a “standards parts list” of
preexisting biological parts and de novo DNA synthesis.
The IAP was developed by four inquisitive MIT professors and senior research-
ers with diverse backgrounds in AI, environmental bioengineering, computer archi-
tecture, and electrical engineering—Tom Knight, Drew Endy, Randy Rettberg, and
Gerald Sussman—who wanted to make biology easier to engineer. To some extent,
it was modeled on the pathbreaking course 25 years earlier offered by Lynn Conway
at MIT with Carver Mead from Caltech, which pioneered the development of VLSI
in semiconductors, and showed the power of decoupling design from fabrication
and collaborative infrastructure such as MOSIS.
Foreword xi

The MIT IAP course struck me not only as super cool in the best MIT geek tradi-
tion but also as incredibly important for a much larger societal canvas. I immedi-
ately grasped the power of the convergence of biology and engineering (as well as
the physical sciences). I could see how introducing an engineering mindset and
methods to the living world could lay the groundwork for a transformational tech-
nology with broad applications for research, meeting societal needs, and economic
competitiveness. And, finally, I foresaw that synthetic biology in many respects was
a tool revolution—including in design, synthesis, and automation—to help us better
understand the complexity of biology and, someday, to program living organisms to
enable a broad array of societal benefits.
But I also had worked extensively with dual-use technologies and emerging tech-
nologies with significant risks, uncertainty, and complex security concerns. My var-
ied experiences at the intersection of government policy, law, universities,
international affairs, national security, and scientific research labs had convinced me
about the need to integrate and address a broad range of safety, security, trust and
trustworthiness, governance, and stakeholder perspectives into the mix from the
outset—the sooner the better; the broader the better. Past misguided approaches,
often rooted in hubris, elitism, and the convictions of some scientists that “if you
only understood my research as well as I do then you would stop asking difficult
questions,” risked failure or suboptimal outcomes.
My views were reinforced soon after the initial MIT IAP synthetic biology
course when I was talking with a senior US politician at that time. I was telling him
about all the reasons why I was so enthused about this new field of synthetic biology
and how I thought it could become so beneficial for advancing US national and
global interests. He interrupted my narrative to say, “Rick, this all sounds great. But
if something goes terribly wrong and people lose trust in it, or if it scares my col-
leagues in Congress, you won’t have much. No investment, no buy in, no public
acceptance.” And, of course, I knew he was right.
Soon after, Drew Endy, then at MIT and now at Stanford, and I were invited to
brief the National Academy of Sciences about this emerging field for the first time.
Key leaders asked Drew and me not only to inform them about what synthetic biol-
ogy was but also to look into our crystal balls. They were eager to get our views
about its future and its implications not only for research but also for society.
Drew, of course, brilliantly addressed the key scientific and engineering aspects,
including the “vision thing” about how synthetic biology could make biology easier
to engineer and help change the world for the better. I focused on a litany of first-­
impression nontechnical issues that I foresaw emerging—decision making under
conditions of uncertainty; legal issues related to freedom to operate and tort liabil-
ity; novel regulatory issues and potential problems with lagging regulatory science
or outdated frameworks; security concerns, including those of dual-use research;
and a long list of international issues.
Looking back at my scribbled and often indecipherable notes from that initial
National Academy briefing recently, I was struck by how much Drew and I got
right—but also how much we missed largely because the pace of change in the last
15 years has been so dramatic. We have witnessed not only exponential scientific
xii Foreword

and engineering advances in synthetic biology but also equally important new
research insights offered by social scientists, innovative new ways to think about
risk assessments and governance, and many lessons about multistakeholder
engagement.
Many of those social science insights and nontechnological innovations are
reflected in Synthetic Biology 2020. This volume expands the breadth and depth of
our understanding about how “collaboration between physical scientists and social
scientists during the innovation process should provide valuable opportunities to
question potential broader impacts and ensure that products are applied
beneficially.”
I often have commented about how, even in those early formative years, the rela-
tively small synthetic biology community was deeply engaged with, and committed
to, the subjects of this book. Fortunately, this ethos continues today, even as the
synthetic biology community expands, renews, and rethinks what it should become.
It also is interesting to reflect about how the central issues of this book have been
at the core of key synthetic biology thought leaders and influencers. The iGEM
Foundation and the BioBricks Foundation are illustrative. iGEM long has celebrated
ethics, societal implications, safety and security, and human practices as core values
in synthetic biology. It integrates them as required components of the annual iGEM
global synthetic biology competition jamboree that now attracts about 340 teams
(university teams, as well as some high schools) from more than 40 countries. More
than 40,000 iGEMmers, who have begun to think about the societal implications of
their synthetic biology research, now constitute a robust “After iGEM” cohort of
emerging leaders dispersed around the world.
The BioBricks Foundation (BBF) views its mission to “advance biotechnology
in an open and ethical manner to benefit all people and the planet.” It has been at the
forefront of developing innovative tools that promote sharing, openness, capacity
building, dialogue, and inclusivity. As the convener of the influential SB x.0 global
series every few years, which brings together most of the key global players in the
field, BBF has established a strong track record in celebrating diversity, enabling
inclusion, and putting into practice the thematic priorities of this book. For example,
the agenda of SB7.0 in Singapore in 2017, the most recent BioBricks Foundation
global event, emphasized inclusion, diversity, and a broad range of ELSI issues as
critical to the future of synthetic biology.
Newer, key umbrella organizations in synthetic biology, such as the Engineering
Biology Research Consortium (EBRC), also have embraced a forward-looking and
inclusive approach consistent with many of the recommendations in the chapters
that follow. A number of EBRC’s individual academic members are leaders in dif-
ferent social science fields, ethics and religion, safety and security, and governance.
EBRC also has integrated the focal points of this book into all four of its core work-
ing groups—policy and international, education, security, and a detailed technical
roadmap for synthetic biology.
Though many of the examples and discussions in this book are American-centric,
this excellent volume compiled by Trump, Cummings, Galaitsi, Kuzma, and Linkov
is not confined to an American audience. It addresses critical issues of consequence
for an international one that reflects the truly global scope of synthetic biology.
Foreword xiii

Though national and international decisions about risk, governance, and ethics no
doubt will continue to vary widely among countries, Synthetic Biology 2020 pro-
vides a diverse toolkit and broadly applicable social science research to assist in
making these often-difficult choices for society.
As Chairman of the OECD/BIAC Science, Technology, and Innovation
Committee for an extended period, I have enjoyed a front row seat from which to
observe and help shape the changing international landscape for synthetic biology.
Europe, for example, integrated responsible innovation as a core element of syn-
thetic biology research and innovation as part of its Horizon 2020 framework and
plans for Horizon Europe. Japan’s Smart Society 5.0 initiative seeks to incorporate
the innovations of the fourth industrial revolution and other emerging technological
innovations, such as synthetic biology and bio-digital convergence, into all aspects
of Japanese life in responsible ways that improve the societal well-being of its
citizens.
And China represents a particularly interesting case study to follow, given the
rapid and widespread growth of all aspects of synthetic biology there. During the
multiyear Six Academies initiative for synthetic biology among the US, UK, and
Chinese national academies, I recall Chinese students and future young leaders in
synthetic biology packing a large lecture hall in Shanghai in October 2011 to listen
eagerly to ELSI talks by Sheila Jasanoff about “From ELSI to Responsible
Innovation” and changing governance paradigms for synthetic biology by Anita
Allen about the study of bioethical issues, and by Paul Gemmill about public
engagement and the societal implications of synthetic biology research in the UK.
Chinese iGEM teams—there were more than 100 in the 2018 competition—rou-
tinely consider and address the societal implications of their synthetic biology
research and projects for their local area, for China, and for the world as part of their
iGEM projects. I attended a large meeting of Chinese iGEM teams from across
China at Shanghai Tech in 2018. In a keynote presentation, Professor Guo-ping
Zhao from the Shanghai Institute of Biological Sciences and the Chinese Academy
of Sciences, who has played a central leadership role in advancing synthetic biology
in China and globally, urged China’s next generation of talented synthetic biologists
to pay particular attention to risk and uncertainty, to safety and security, and to the
societal implications of their work.
Both on the global stage and in each of the more than 40 countries with active
synthetic biology communities, we will have to see how well the difficult and often
complex subjects of Synthetic Biology 2020 are integrated into synthetic biology
research, innovation, policy making, and social discourse over the next two decades.
This volume offers a diverse set of analytical tools, social science research, and
policy lessons to guide them in making prudent and responsible choices, many of
which will involve considerable uncertainty. The future of synthetic biology will
depend, in large part, on the decision-making processes they follow and the choices
they make.

Richard A. Johnson
Global Helix LLC
Washington, DC, USA
Preface

Synthetic biology offers powerful remedies for some of the world’s most intractable
problems, but these solutions may not be applied if the public perceives them to
accompany unacceptable risks. The public forms opinions about tradeoffs for syn-
thetic biology’s risks and benefits, and already a small but notable population exists
that favors banning the field outright until the risks are better understood. This book
includes various perspectives of synthetic biology from the social sciences, such as
with risk assessment, governance, ethics, and communication. Ultimately, we argue
that synthetic biology is poised to provide valuable benefits to humanity that likely
could not be achieved by alternate means, as well as to enrich the teams that create
them. The incentives are prodigious and obvious, and the public deserves assur-
ances that all potential downsides are duly considered and minimized accordingly.
Incorporating social science analysis within the innovation process may impose
constraints, but its simultaneous support in making the end products more accept-
able to society at large should be considered a worthy trade-off.
Contributing authors in this volume represent diverse disciplines related to the
development of synthetic biology applications and reflect on differing areas of risk
analysis and governance that have developed for the field. In sum, the chapters of
this volume note that while the first 20 years of synthetic biology development have
focused strongly on technological innovation and product development, the next 20
should emphasize the synergy between developers, policy makers, and the public to
generate the most beneficial, well-governed, and transparent technologies and prod-
ucts possible.
Many chapters in this volume provide new data and approaches that demonstrate
the feasibility for multistakeholder efforts involving policy makers, regulators,
industrial developers, workers, experts, and societal representatives to share respon-
sibilities in the production of effective and acceptable governance in the face of
uncertain risk probabilities. Such participation bestows responsibility and is a par-
tial remedy for ignorance. More contributors not only ensure that the problem is
examined from myriad perspectives representing distinct motives but also addresses
public wariness to adopt new technologies. Industries engaging with the public can
also foster transparency and address concerns as they arise. These steps may prevent

xv
xvi Preface

a world of draconian regulations based on insufficient understanding and wide-

spread fear. Simultaneous collaboration between physical scientists and social sci-
entists during the innovation process should provide valuable opportunities to
question potential broader impacts and ensure that products are applied beneficially.
Thus, the unique situation of synthetic biology and its attention from the social sci-
ence is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of collaboration and the security
benefits it helps to provide.

Vicksburg, MS, USA  Benjamin D. Trump

Singapore, Singapore  Christopher L. Cummings
Raleigh, NC, USA  Jennifer Kuzma
Vicksburg, MS, USA  Igor Linkov
Acknowledgments

Edited volumes require substantial cooperation and support to execute, and we are
thankful to everyone who had a hand in making this book happen.
We are grateful for the book’s chief reviewer, Stephanie Galaitsi, who provided
a critical and impartial eye throughout all the stages of the review process.
We also acknowledge the ideas and support of Dr. Elizabeth Ferguson, Dr. Ilker
Adiguzel, Dr. Edward Perkins, Dr. Scott Greer, Dr. Christy Foran, and LTG Thomas
Bostick who have each furthered our desire to pursue better research in synthetic
biology in a unique way.
We are thankful for the support of George Siharulidze, Joshua Trump, and
Miriam Pollock, who provided additional support via reviews and technical editing.
Dr. Trump would also like to acknowledge the considerable support he received
during his field work in Singapore via the Institute of Occupational Medicine (Dr.
Michael Riediker, Dr. Robert Aitken) and Nanyang Technological University (Dr.
Ng Kee Woei).
We are grateful for the support of our respective institutions, including the US
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Nanyang Technological
University, and North Carolina State University. We are also very thankful for the
support of the host institutions of each of the authors included in this text—the con-
tributions by this international audience make for a richer and more scientifically
complete understanding of synthetic biology’s risk analysis, governance, and com-
munication scholarship.

xvii
Disclaimer

The ideas, research, and arguments represented within this book are the views of the
chapter authors alone and may not represent the views of their affiliated organiza-
tions. No text herein should be taken as an official statement or position of any
government, university, company, or other organizations.

xix
Contents

Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance,

Communication, and ELSI ����������������������������������������������������������������������������    1
Benjamin D. Trump, Christopher L. Cummings, S. E. Galaitsi,
Jennifer Kuzma, and Igor Linkov
Synthetic Biology: Research Needs for Assessing
Environmental Impacts ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   19
Christopher M. Warner, Sarah R. Carter, Richard F. Lance,
Fiona H. Crocker, Heather N. Meeks, Bryn L. Adams,
Matthew L. Magnuson, Taylor Rycroft, Kaytee Pokrzywinski,
and Edward J. Perkins
Transfish: The Multiple Origins of Transgenic Salmon ������������������������������   51
Hallam Stevens
The State of Synthetic Biology Scholarship: A Case Study
of Comparative Metrics and Citation Analysis ��������������������������������������������   65
Jeffrey C. Cegan
Synthetic Biology, GMO, and Risk: What Is New,
and What Is Different?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85
Benjamin D. Trump
Estimating and Predicting Exposure to Products
from Emerging Technologies�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 107
Daniel A. Vallero
Mosquitoes Bite: A Zika Story of Vector Management
and Gene Drives ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 143
David M. Berube
Synthetic Biology Industry: Biosafety Risks to Workers ���������������������������� 165
Vladimir Murashov, John Howard, and Paul Schulte

xxi
xxii Contents

Designing a “Solution-Focused” Governance Paradigm

for Synthetic Biology: Toward Improved Risk Assessment
and Creative Regulatory Design�������������������������������������������������������������������� 183
Adam M. Finkel
A Solution-Focused Comparative Risk Assessment of Conventional
and Emerging Synthetic Biology Technologies for Fuel Ethanol���������������� 223
Emily Wells, Benjamin D. Trump, Adam M. Finkel, and Igor Linkov
An Initial Framework for the Environmental Risk
Assessment of Synthetic Biology-Derived Organisms
with a Focus on Gene Drives �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 257
Wayne G. Landis, Ethan A. Brown, and Steven Eikenbary
Biology Without Borders: Need for Collective Governance?���������������������� 269
Todd Kuiken
Synthetic Biology and Risk Regulation: The Case of Singapore ���������������� 297
Benjamin D. Trump, George Siharulidze, and Christopher L. Cummings
Effective and Comprehensive Governance of Biological
Risks: A Network of Networks Approach for Sustainable
Capacity Building�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 313
Tatyana Novossiolova, Lela Bakanidze, and Dana Perkins
The Role of Expert Disciplinary Cultures in Assessing Risks
and Benefits of Synthetic Biology ������������������������������������������������������������������ 351
Christina Ndoh, Christopher L. Cummings, and Jennifer Kuzma
Scientists’ and the Publics’ Views of Synthetic Biology������������������������������� 371
Emily L. Howell, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard,
Michael A. Xenos, Seokbeom Kwon, Jan Youtie, and Philip Shapira
Dignity as a Faith-Based Consideration in the Ethics
of Human Genome Editing ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 389
Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco
Highlights on the Risk Governance for Key Enabling
Technologies: From Risk Denial to Ethics ���������������������������������������������������� 399
Myriam Merad

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 409
About the Editors

Benjamin D. Trump is a Research Social Scientist for the US Army Engineer

Research and Development Center. Dr. Trump’s work focuses on decision making
and governance of activities under significant uncertainty, such as emerging and
enabling technologies (synthetic biology, nanotechnology) and developing organi-
zational, infrastructural, social, and informational resilience against systemic threats
to complex interconnected systems. Dr. Trump served as a delegate to assist US
presence in OECD’s Global Science Forum in 2017 and is the President of the
Society for Risk Analysis’ Decision Analysis and Risk Specialty Group in
2018–2019. He was selected as a Fellow of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity
Initiative (ELBI), Class of 2019. Dr. Trump was also a contributing author of the
International Risk Governance Council’s Guidelines for the Governance of Systemic
Risks, as well as their second volume of the Resource Guide on Resilience. Dr.
Trump is also frequently active with several Advanced Research Workshops for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Science for Peace Programme, including his
role as a Program Committee Lead for a workshop on Biosecurity for Synthetic
Biology and Emerging Biotechnologies. Dr. Trump received his Ph.D. from the
University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, Department of Health
Management and Policy in 2016. He received an M.S. (2012) in Public Policy and
Management and a B.S. in Political Science (2011) from Carnegie Mellon University
and completed his postdoctoral training at the University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Christopher L. Cummings serves as an Assistant Professor of Strategic

Communication at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore—a top-ranked
university in Asia and among the top 15 in the world. He is the Director of the
International Strategic Communication Management program and has served in
multiple leadership positions within the Society for Risk Analysis. Dr. Cummings’
work focuses on advancing public engagement with science, developing risk com-
munication theory, and improving public health decision making across the life
span. An experienced social scientist and communication campaign scholar, Dr.
Cummings uses a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, and his
work has been featured in applied science and health venues, including the Journal

xxiii
xxiv About the Editors

of Risk Research; Regulation and Governance; Nanotoxicology; PLOS One;

Science, Technology, & Human Values; and Climate Research, among others.
Outside of academia, Dr. Cummings also consults with multiple government agen-
cies across the Asia-Pacific on health risk communication issues, including dengue
fever surveillance and response (Sri Lanka and Singapore), obesity and nutrition
access (New Zealand), vaccine communication (Singapore, Australia, and United
States), and public engagement with nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geoen-
gineering (Australia, United States, and Singapore). He also consults privately with
various Fortune 500 companies on leadership training, strategic planning, and risk
communication initiatives. He completed his B.A. in Communication Studies
(California State University, Chico), his M.S. in Communication and Ph.D. in
Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media (North Carolina State University),
and his postdoctoral work under the supervision of Dr. Jennifer Kuzma at the
Genetic Engineering and Society Center (North Carolina State University).

Jennifer Kuzma is the Goodnight-NC GSK Foundation Distinguished Professor

in the School of Public and International Affairs and Cofounder and Codirector of
the Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center (research.ncsu.edu/ges) at NC
State University. Prior to her current position, she was Associate Professor at the
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota (2003–2013); Study
Director for several NASEM reports related to biotechnology governance and bio-
terrorism (1999–2003); and AAAS Risk Policy Fellow at the USDA (1997–1998).
She has over 120 scholarly publications on emerging technologies, risk analysis,
and governance, including four articles in Science and Nature in the past three years.
Kuzma served as a member of the WEF Global Futures Council on Technology,
Values and Policy, the NASEM Committee on Preparing for Future Biotechnology,
the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee, and the UN WHO-FAO Expert
Group for Agrifood Nanotechnologies and as SRA Secretary and Council member.
She currently serves on the AAAS-ABA National Council of Scientists and Lawyers.
She received the SRA Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer Award for her contributions
to the field of risk analysis, was elected as a Fellow of AAAS in 2018 for her distin-
guished work in anticipatory governance of new technologies, and was awarded the
Fulbright Canada Visiting Research Chair in Science Policy in 2017. She appears
frequently in the media for her expertise in biotechnology policy, including The
New York Times, Science, Nature, NPR, The Washington Post, Scientific American,
PBS Nova, Wired, and ABC & NBC News. She obtained her Ph.D. in biochemistry
from the U of CO Boulder in 1995, where she discovered bacterial isoprene produc-
tion, and was awarded the first patent for methods of bioisoprene production. Her
postdoctoral work at the Rockefeller University on plant drought and salinity toler-
ance led to an article in the journal Science in 1997.

Igor Linkov is the Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead with the US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center and an Adjunct Professor with Carnegie
Mellon University. Dr. Linkov has managed multiple risk and resilience assess-
ments and management projects in many application domains, including
About the Editors xxv

c­ybersecurity, transportation, supply chain, homeland security and defense, and

critical infrastructure. He was part of several Interagency Committees and Working
Groups tasked with developing resilience metrics and resilience management
approaches, including the US Army Corps of Engineers Resilience Roadmap. Dr.
Linkov has organized more than 30 national and international conferences and con-
tinuing education workshops, including NATO workshops on Cyber Resilience in
Estonia (2018) and Finland (2019), as well as Chaired Program Committee for 2015
and 2019 World Congresses on Risk in Singapore and Cape Town. He has published
widely on environmental policy, environmental modeling, and risk analysis, includ-
ing 20 books and over 350 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters in top journals,
like Nature, Nature Nanotechnology, Nature Climate Change, among others. He
has served on many review and advisory panels for DOD, DHS, FDA, EPA, NSF,
the EU, and other US and international agencies. Dr. Linkov is Society for Risk
Analysis Fellow and recipient of 2005 Chauncey Starr Award for exceptional con-
tribution to risk analysis, as well as 2014 Outstanding Practitioner Award. He is an
Elected Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS). Dr. Linkov has a B.S. and M.Sc. in Physics and Mathematics (Polytechnic
Institute) and a Ph.D. in Environmental, Occupational and Radiation Health
(University of Pittsburgh). He completed his postdoctoral training in risk assess-
ment at the Harvard University.
Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk
Analysis, Governance, Communication,
and ELSI

Benjamin D. Trump, Christopher L. Cummings, S. E. Galaitsi,

Jennifer Kuzma, and Igor Linkov

Synthetic biology is a technology with incredible promise yet equally galling uncer-
tainty. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity defines synthetic
biology as “biotechnology that combines science, technology, and engineering to
facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture, and/or
modification of genetic materials, living organisms, and biological systems”
(Convention of Biological Diversity). Synthetic biology can produce entirely new
organisms, some of which may pose risks to naturally existing ecosystems. While
humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for millennia, synthetic
biology and its enabling technologies allow combining genetic material from organ-
isms that cannot procreate in nature and grant more deliberate and precise control
over the selection of genetic processes.
Synthetic biology innovations might support disease prevention, large-scale food
production, and sustainable energy, as well as more dubious applications like
eugenics and invasive manufactured organisms. The difference between highly
beneficial and highly hazardous outcomes depends upon the decisions of the people
funding, producing, and regulating synthetic biology projects. The new and unique
qualities of synthetic materials and their complex intersections with existing
biological, ecological, and sociotechnical systems raise the specter of unpredictable
outcomes (Linkov et al. 2018) and can complicate these decisions. For established

B. D. Trump (*) · I. Linkov

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. L. Cummings
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
S. E. Galaitsi
US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, USA
J. Kuzma
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

B. D. Trump et al. (eds.), Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis
and Governance, Risk, Systems and Decisions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_1
2 B. D. Trump et al.

Fig. 1 Breakdown of
disciplines within social
science and implication-­
related research pertinent
to synthetic biology

technologies, the current risk assessment and management paradigms are well-­
developed (Linkov et al. 2018), but there is uncertainty surrounding decisions in
synthetic biology, including the scope of risks and the methods for monitoring them.
This uncertainty should decrease as the field produces more data and stabilizes,
which will require time, scholarship, and investment.
This book, Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance,
examines the synthetic biology field after two decades of innovation. Within such a
topic, the book includes perspectives of synthetic biology from the social sciences,
such as risk assessment, governance, ethics, and communication (Fig. 1).
Contributing authors in this volume represent diverse disciplines related to the
development of synthetic biology’s social sciences and consider different areas of
risk analysis and governance that have developed over this time and the societal
implications. The chapters of this volume note that while the first 20 years of
synthetic biology development have focused strongly on technological innovation
and product development, the next 20 must emphasize the synergy between
developers, policymakers, and the public to generate the maximally beneficial,
well-governed, and transparent technologies and products.

 aking Sense of Synthetic Biology: Raw Opportunity

M
and Uncertain Implications

The field is growing rapidly; estimates for 2020 equity funding forecast nearly $40
billion dollars to be directed to private synthetic biology companies (Polizzi et al.
2018), a 40-fold increase from funding in 2016. But the products of synthetic
biology will not be demanded nor subsequently deployed if potential customers
distrust their utility or safety. Fears of tragedies from synthetic biology applications
are readily imaginable: privileged designer babies, bioterrorism, and disrupted
ecosystems are all moral or physical calamities that could arise should synthetic
biology development be inadequately regulated.
While there is usually risk in implementing new technologies, there is also risk
in choosing to let existing hazards continue to control aspects of our environment.
In that sense, unwarranted negative public perception of synthetic biology
Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance, Communication, and ELSI 3

innovations could hinder societal advancement (Palma-Oliveira et al. 2018). While

industry, government, and private actors have different priorities and motivations in
producing and using synthetic biology, concerns over the safety and protection of
their communities and the natural world that supports them are universally shared.
However, some end users may disproportionally bear potential risks of synthetic
biology applications and thus rationally perceive safety differently. These percep-
tions can be captured and addressed through social science assessments to guide
safe and socially acceptable development of synthetic biology. Anticipating both
physical and social outcomes enables insights to be integrated into revisions of pre-
vious decisions and improves the value of iterative processes of experimentation
and innovation.
Technological development and assessment have historically occurred as two
distinct steps, often separated by a time period measurable in years. First,
technological breakthroughs rise within the physical and natural sciences, which are
subsequently discussed by social science regarding the technology’s societal
implications, risks, and regulatory needs. For example, the growth of mass
transportation technologies in the early nineteenth century brought risks of
mechanical accidents and toxic emissions (Cummings et al. 2013). When dichloro-
diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) use spread globally in the 1940s, its deleterious
environmental and human health effects were unknown. It took until 1972 for the
United States to ban it, followed by a worldwide ban under the Stockholm
Convention in 2001 (Cummings et al. 2013).
Inferring policy needs and recommendations for developing technology is an
uncertain business. A product’s impacts on society are difficult to assess when the
product is underdeveloped and does not yet resemble the version that will ultimately
be adopted. Many products may prove infeasible and therefore inconsequential (see
Fig. 2), and their assessments can squander precious resources. Yet, waiting for a
relatively finalized product disadvantages social scientists because their inquiry will
be in its earliest stages while the physical scientists are finalizing their own and
potentially beginning to market a product. Jasanoff (2009) writes that the responsive
and reflexive nature of social science inquiry causes it to lag behind physical science
research. But if the reflexive nature of social science were incorporated within the
innovation process, the societal infeasibility of some products could be identified
earlier and used to guide physical scientists to create more universally beneficial
products.
Ideally, including social science in the innovation process can provide transpar-
ency that may reassure members of the public that the benefits of a new technology
outweigh the risks. Such social science scrutiny promotes developing governance
initiatives that can be operated in tandem with broader technological dissemination.
However, the same critical inquiry of developing technologies may stoke fears of
the new, uncertain, and unknown. Ideas can be presented out of context in ways that
emphasize their risks without communicating their safeguards and may provoke
public criticism and opposition. Too much opposition can hamper or even halt inno-
vations before scientists can incorporate or address criticism in their products. A
two-step process that separates innovation from evaluation precludes this type of
4 B. D. Trump et al.

Fig. 2 Illustrating path dependency

or the winding road and various
choices that transform a scientific
idea into a commercial product

project derailment – but also can bring products to market without adequate safeties
in place.
The social convulsions associated with emerging technologies could be less dra-
matic or harmful when better anticipated. Consider the automobile: delayed full-­
privileged licensure for teenage drivers, in combination with other factors, reduces
crash rates for new drivers (Ferguson et al. 1996; Williams 2009). This information
would have been useful in the 1940s when most US states picked the age 16 as the
minimum driving age. States partially addressed the issue later by implementing
graduated licensing laws, but the minimum driving age is now ingrained in the
United States’ car-dependent culture and is unlikely to change despite its recog-
nized risks.
Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance, Communication, and ELSI 5

In recent decades, the time lag between physical science innovation and social
science assessment and governmental mobilization has narrowed. Lessons learned
from previous mistakes have prompted greater scrutiny and evaluation of
technological impacts prior to their immersion in society. Synthetic biology in par-
ticular has not been insulated from social science inquiry during the innovation
process. The physical and social science publications examining synthetic biology
show nearly parallel trends in growth, indicating that social scientists have the
ability to directly comment on emerging research (Trump et al. 2019). Torgersen
and Schmidt (2013) and Shapira et al. (2015) attribute the contemporaneous, rather
than lagged, growth of social science discourse of synthetic biology to the
foundations laid by social science research on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), which had a controversial reception in the public sphere.
The simultaneous inquiry by both physical and social scientists augurs a process
that will be fundamentally different than for previous innovations that developed
outside of the public eye. Synthetic biology offers powerful remedies for some of
the world’s most intractable problems, but these solutions may not be developed or
applied if the public perceives them to accompany unacceptable risks. Already a
small but notable population exists that favors banning the field outright until the
risks are better understood (Pauwels 2009; Pauwels 2013; Marris 2015). Such
public mistrust and suspicion can be fueled by interest groups or misguided
individuals (Linkov et al. 2018) who enjoy the public’s attention. Calvert and Martin
(2009) argue that the social concerns surrounding synthetic biology research
through 2009 might have been addressed by “institutionaliz[ing]” social scientists’
involvement in the field. A proactive and adaptive approach to risk management and
governance can aid risk assessment in circumstances of limited experimental data
(Oye 2012; Trump 2017), and social science inquiry can play a key role (Trump
et al. 2018).
Since social science research of synthetic biology is already underway, physical
and natural scientists have the opportunity to actively engage social scientists to
evaluate innovations and help develop feasible products. In our modern era, physi-
cal scientists must understand that public perception matters and is a determinant
in how applications of synthetic biology are ultimately funded, used, and gov-
erned. Because synthetic biology has the attention of social sciences so early in its
innovation process, it has an opportunity to demonstrate the value of transdisci-
plinary collaboration in technological innovation as a way of providing secure ben-
efits and a safe and socially acceptable forum for further exploration and
development. Myriad perspectives around synthetic biology represent distinct
motives and can directly address public wariness to adopt new technologies
(Linkov et al. 2018). These steps may prevent a world of draconian policies based
on insufficient understanding and widespread fear. Collaboration between physical
scientists and social scientists during the innovation process should provide valu-
able opportunities to question potential broader impacts and ensure that products
are acceptably safe.
6 B. D. Trump et al.

Twenty Years of Synthetic Biology Development

Here, we present a short history of synthetic biology’s development followed by

brief descriptions of the chapters in this volume. As editors, we hope to provide a
valuable and compelling resource that motivates the next generation of stakeholder
collaborations to be resolute in envisioning a future that maximizes the potentials of
synthetic biology while anticipating and respecting the needs and values of a diverse
global citizenry.
Starting in the late 1970s, genetic engineers could blindly launch a novel gene
into a host cell, hoping it landed in a good spot and worked in the new environment.
After decades of incremental improvements in biochemical and genomic science,
modern synthetic biology began to take root in the 1990s and early 2000s through
engagement in more complex system engineering of viruses and bacteria. During
the 1990s, “automated DNA sequencing and improved computational tools enabled
complete microbial genomes to be sequenced, and high-throughput techniques for
measuring RNA, protein, lipids and metabolites enabled scientists to generate a vast
catalogue of cellular components and their interactions” (Cameron et al. 2014).
This, coupled with a system engineering approach to biology, served as the core
principles that made modern synthetic biology possible (Porcar and Peretó 2014;
Cameron et al. 2014). In other words, genetic engineering around this time began to
consider whether complex cellular networks could be viewed as engineered systems
where biological engineering of a cell’s DNA could yield complex changes to how
those systems operate.
In 2000, Nature published two articles that discussed the deliberate creation of
biological circuit devices (where biological parts inside a cell are designed to
perform logical functions mimicking those observed in electronic circuits) by
combining genes within E. coli cells. Gardner et al. (2000) constructed a genetic
toggle switch to influence the expression of mutually inhibitory transcriptional
repressors. Elowitz and Leibler (2000) engineered an oscillatory circuit that, when
activated, produced the ordered and periodic oscillation of repressor protein
expression. These publications encouraged the further development of research
centered on circuit engineering and synthetic circuit construction to influence a
cell’s network design, including cell-to-cell communication and interactions (Weiss
and Knight 2001).
During this time, the field of systems biology also emerged as a mature and inde-
pendent field of inquiry pertaining to the computational and mathematical modeling
of complex biological systems (Kitano 2002; Ideker et al. 2001). The field seeks to
better understand the various properties of cells, tissues, and the systemic infra-
structure that comprises living organisms (Hucka et al. 2004; Hood et al. 2004).
This generally entails researching cell signaling networks or the signals and stimuli
that govern and control cellular actions (Ingber 2003; Kitano 2002). For example,
Park et al. (2003) published their work on posttranslational regulation using protein–
protein interaction domains and scaffold proteins using S. cerevisiae. Coupled with
earlier principles of genetic engineering, the technological and scientific
Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance, Communication, and ELSI 7

advancements derived within systems biology serve as some of the driving forces
behind the development of synthetic biology research (Andrianantoandro et al.
2006; Khalil and Collins 2010).
By 2004, synthetic biology had clearly evolved from a small number of biolo-
gists and engineers into a growing and unique field of emerging technology research
in its own right. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology hosted “Synthetic
Biology 1.0” in June 2004 as the first international conference explicitly dedicated
to synthetic biology research (Ball 2004). At this meeting, an interdisciplinary col-
lection of professionals encompassing the field of biology, chemistry, computer sci-
ence, and others discussed the desire to design, build, and characterize biological
systems and interactions (Ferber 2004). This conference spurred further international
meetings known colloquially as the SBx.0, with the latest iteration as of this writing
held in Imperial College London in 2013 (SB 6.0). This conference series advanced
discussion around blending elements of engineering with molecular biology to
determine whether synthetic biology could develop as an engineering field like
electrical engineering or materials science (Cameron et al. 2014). Specifically, Endy
et al. (2005) and Cameron et al. (2014) describe these early efforts as an attempt to
produce a collection of modular parts and improve design pathways for engineered
cells with the idea that modifying specific cell circuit designs could deliberately
change the behavior or interactions of that cell with its local environment.
Between 2004 and 2010, “the second wave of synthetic biology” produced cir-
cuit design and metabolic engineering (Purnick and Weiss 2009; Isaacs et al. 2004).
The former included attempts to expand RNA-derived cellular systems of biological
circuit engineering from “transcriptional control” into posttranscriptional control
vehicles and capabilities (Bayer and Smolke 2005). Generally accomplished using
E. coli, various scientists sought to expand circuit and part designs, with one such
circuit dedicated to the conversion of light into gene expression for a collection of
E. coli cells (Levskaya et al. 2005).
For the developments in metabolic engineering, a group of scientists at the
University of California, Berkeley, studied isoprenoid biosynthesis which produces
artemisinic acid, or the component precursor to the wormwood Artemisia annua
(Ro et al. 2006). Using a collection of organisms including Saccharomyces
cerevisiae and E. coli, scientists under the leadership of Dr. Jay Keasling produced
artemisinic acid using fermented yeast cells in controlled and pre-planned settings
(Ro et al. 2006; Hale et al. 2007). The World Health Organization uses artemisinin
combination therapies as the primary initial treatment for P. falciparum malaria.
The drug destroys the majority of parasites in a patient’s blood upon the drug’s
ingestion (Nosten and White 2007; Van Agtmael et al. 1999). However, the plant’s
erratic price points (ranging from $120 to $1200 USD per kilogram between 2005
and 2008) and fluctuating production levels have hindered naturally produced
artemisinin antimalarial drug distribution in Africa and Southeast Asia (Mutabingwa
2005; White 2008; Kindermans et al. 2007). Natural artemisinin-based treatments
may require subsidies and controlled crop development to ensure accessibility
(Mutabingwa 2005; White 2008). However, synthetic production of artemisinic
components provides a faster timeline and more efficient resource use and can
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
 propaganda against you which fell absolutely flat and it’s a rattling
good thing the King making much of you in this way as it gets
about and without any question the King now largely moulds the
public will! As to your letter in regard to myself, it of course gives
me great joy that the King gives me his blessing and also dear
Knollys’s wonderful fidelity to me is a miracle! (I always think of an
incident long ago when he calmly ignored a furious effusion of mine
to the King and put the letter in the fire without saying a word to me
till long afterwards! I all the time joyful—thinking I had done
splendidly!)

[After a forecast of a coming change in the Government the letter

goes on]

You will at once say: What is the First Sea Lord going to do?
Answer—Nothing! It is the only course to follow! I have thought it
all out most carefully and decided to keep absolutely dumb. When
a new Admiralty patent appears in the London Gazette without my
name in it, I pack up and walk out and settle down in the Tyrol.
Temperature 70° in the shade and figs ten a penny and wear out all
my white tunics and white trowsers! McKenna, to whom I am
absolutely devoted, may force my hand to help him. In view of all
he has risked for me (he was practically out of the Cabinet for 24
hours at one time! This is a fact) I am ready to go to the stake for
him; but if he is well advised he also will be dumb.... I am so
surprised how utterly both the Cabinet and the Press have failed to
see the “inwardness” of the new “Pacific Fleet”! I had a few
momentous words in private with Sir Joseph Ward (the Prime
Minister of New Zealand). He saw it! It means eventually Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Cape (that is South Africa) and India
running a complete Navy! We manage the job in Europe. They’ll
manage the job ... as occasion requires out there! The very
wonderful thing is that only dear old Lord Kelvin and the First Sea
Lord at the first wanted the Battle Cruiser type alone and not
“Dreadnoughts”; but we had a compromise, as you know, and got 3
 Indomitables with the Dreadnoughts; and all the world now has got
“Indomitables” on the brain! Hip! Hip! Hurrah!

* * * * *
1909.
Dec. 25th.

... Wilson and I have talked a lot about our War plan for the
Navy. You know he told the Defence Committee that only he and I
knew of the War Plan, which is quite true and it was the same
when his fleet was joined with mine when South African War was in
progress. He would sooner die than disclose it. (God bless Sir
Arthur Wilson!)

* * * * *
1910.
Jan. 23rd.

Of course no question as to strategic merits of a Canal, and it

ought originally to have been the scheme instead of Rosyth, but
now is it possible to make the volte-face? I fear not! I got Rosyth
delayed 4 years as not being the right thing or the right place and
hoping for our Kiel Canal; but though I succeeded in the delay,
alas! I did not in the substitution. However, I will see Hankey as you
suggest. Yes, I’m quite happy, and my cry is not “à Berlin!”... I’ve
got some war charts that would make your mouth water!

[Sir John Fisher left the Admiralty on his birthday, Jan. 25th, 1910,
and was raised to the Peerage.]

* * * * *

1910.
Kilverstone Hall,

February 2nd.
Thetford.
 ... I’ve just got here from Cheshire, where for days running I’ve
had Paradise. 3 lovely girls in the house, a splendid ball room and
music always on hand! 3 young Guardsmen there, but I held my
own!
Dancing till 4 a.m. took it out of me a bit, but it revivified me
and I renewed my strength like the Eagle!... I hope the King talked
politics with McKenna, who is very acute and would sacrifice
himself for the King. Didn’t you think McKenna excellent, the night
he dined with me, as to the course the King should pursue? You
see he knows so exactly how the Cabinet will be actuated....
There are great risks. Both political sides unscrupulous....
P.S.—Wasn’t it the Emperor Diocletian who doffed the Imperial
Purple to plant cabbages? and d—d fine cabbages, no doubt! So
don’t blackguard me for leaving the Admiralty of my own free will,
to plant roses!

* * * * *
1910.
Feb. 18th.

... Things look ugly.... However, I’m a pure outsider! There will
be desperate efforts to supplant Wilson, so I hear from trustworthy
quarters. But McKenna will be the real loss to the Navy. The sacred
fire of efficiency burns brightly in him! and he’s a born fighter and a
good hater, which I love (as Dr. Johnson did) with all my heart. You
really must come here when the weather is nicer—it’s lovely! I’ve
never known till now what joy there is in Nature. Even beauteous
woman fades in the comparison! I’ve just seen the wild swans
flying over the Lake! “The world forgetting—By the world forgot!” is
appropriate to me now!... I’ve just thought of a lovely Preamble for
my approaching “Midshipman’s Vade-Mecum” ... I rather think it’s
Blackie, though perhaps not his words:
“Four Things for a Big Life
I. A great Inspiration
II. A great Cause
III. A great Battle
IV. A great Victory
Having got those 4 things then you can preach the Gospel of
Rest and Build an Altar to Repose.”

* * * * *
1910.
March 14th.

... I lunched with Asquith, he was more than cordial! How funny
it is that I did infinitely more for the Conservatives than for the
Radicals, and yet the Radicals have given me all I have got and
the Conservatives have only given me abuse and calumny!
The Radicals gave me my Pension and a Peerage, and yet I
increased the Radical estimates nearly ten millions! I decreased
the estimates 9 millions and reduced prospective charges by
nineteen millions sterling for the Conservatives, and they never
lifted even a little finger to help me, but on the contrary have
heaped dunghill abuse on me! How do you explain this?
McKenna, whose life has been a burden on my account, gives
me a thing that would do for an Ascot Gold Cup with the inscription
I enclose—luckily it’s in Latin or I dare not let it be seen! (The
Craven Scholar writes to me it’s the best Latin he ever read in his
life!) I wouldn’t write all this to anyone else, but is it not all of it
phenomenally curious? Well, longo intervallo I took your advice
and seized an opportunity which called for my communicating with
Winston, and he sent me by return of post a most affectionate letter
and says I am the one man in the world he really loves! (Well! I
really love him because he’s a great Fighter.) What a joke if you, I
and George Clarke were put on to reform the House of Lords!

* * * * *
1910.
March 24th.

I sent you a telegram from Ely on my way down (I caught my

train by ½ a minute!) as my cogitations impelled me to suggest to
you that Asquith obviously does not see the fallacy of ——’s
reasoning, which as you very acutely observed would kill the
Defence Committee as a whole in its guiding, but not its
administrative or executive power, which are non-existent and
inimical to its existence. But its “guiding” power is England’s all-in-
all, if only its sufficiency and efficiency could be digested.
I had an immense talk with McKenna.... He was “dead on” for
your Committee. Of course the Ideal was your being President, but
I suppose the “Shifting Man” as President, according to the subject
and the Department concerned, has its merits and advantages.

* * * * *
1910.
April 8th.

Old Stead’s letter in Standard on 2 keels to 1 is unsurpassable!

It ought to be circulated in millions as a leaflet!... What d—d fools
the Tories are not to swallow it whole—the 2 keels to 1!... I told “the
Islanders” secretly I could do more as the “mole,” so not to put my
name down—(The Mole is my métier! only to be traced by
upheavals!) Get Stead’s letter sent all over the Nation as a leaflet.
I am to meet you on April 19th, Suez Canal.
I don’t know Wilson’s views. These are mine:—
General principle: The Admiralty should never engage itself to
lock up a single vessel even—not even a torpedo-boat, or
submarine—anywhere on any consideration whatever. The whole
principle of Sea fighting is to be free to go anywhere with every d—
d thing the Navy possesses. The Admiralty should engage to do
their best but to reserve entire freedom of action. The responsibility
of the Suez Canal therefore cannot be theirs. If this clashes with
your views you had better cancel me on Committee, for I’ll fight like
Hell for the above vital War Principle!

* * * * *
1910.
April 25th.
 I congratulate you on the latest by “Historicus”; but do you
sufficiently intensify the intolerable tyranny of the permanent Tory
majority in the Lords that has meant a real single chamber
government for so many years? The Radicals are on the win and
no one can stop it. We exaggerate the consequences. The silly
thing is to have a General Election. Who gains? Everybody loses!
Certainly the Tories won’t win. Tariff Reform dead. Winston’s last
speeches have been very high class, especially where he shows
how far greater issues are settled by the Government than
anything appertaining to legislation without the House of Lords
having a voice and we have always taken those risks in the past
without a thought!
What is this about Kitchener hoisting out French as Inspector
General? Anything to get Kitchener out of England!

[King Edward VII. died on May 6th, 1910.]

1910.
May.
(Saturday.)

What an inexpressible sorrow!. How we both know the loss!

What a great National Calamity! And personally what can I say?
What a splendid and steadfast friend! No use saying any more to
each other—is it? I really feel heart broken!

* * * * *
1910.
May 24th.
Kilverstone Hall.

... I really can’t get over the irreparable loss. I think of nothing
else! Treves gave me a wonderful account of the King’s last day. I
rather think the King was coming to see me here, had he remained
at Sandringham. The Queen [Queen Alexandra] has been very
sweet to me. She stopped to notice me going up the steps of St.
George’s Chapel and so did her Sister [the Empress Marie]. I
appreciated it very much—but most of all my interview with her....
She told me she would come here to see me and how the King had
told her about me being disappointed at her not having been to
Kilverstone before. You’ll think me morbid writing like this.
I dined with Asquith, McKenna and George Murray last week in
London. If the Tories weren’t such d—d stupid idiots I should
rejoice at things being certain to go well.... My day is past. I have
no illusions. You will enjoy the roses I’ve planted when you come
here. How one’s life does change!

* * * * *
1910.
May 27th.

... The Commonwealth Government [of Australia] have just

sent a confidential telegram to Sir George Reid to ask me to go as
their Guest to advise on the Navy. I’ve declined. I’d go as Dictator
but not as Adviser. Also they have commenced all wrong and it
would involve me in a campaign I intend to keep clear of with the
soldiers. By the wording of the telegram I expect further pressure.
Besides what a d—d fine thing to get me planted in the Antipodes!
[Kitchener and the Australians, in drawing up their scheme of
defence, forgot that Australia was an island. So do we here in
England.]

* * * * *
1910.
June 7th.

... I can’t shake off my sense of loss in the King’s death.

Though personally it practically makes no difference of course—yet
I feel so curious a sense of isolation—which I can’t get over—and
no longer seem to care a d—n for anything!...
As you told me, it was miraculous I left the Admiralty when I
did! It was the nick of time! A. K. Wilson is doing splendidly and is
unassailable. I had much pressure to emerge the other day, but I
won’t, nor have I the heart now.
 * * * * *
1910.
August 5th.
Kilverstone Hall.

McKenna has just been here on his second visit (so he liked
the first, I suppose! I mention this as an inducement to you to
come!) He has shewn me various secret papers. He is a real
fighter, and the Navy Haters will pass over his dead body! If our
late Blessed Master was alive I should know what to do; but I feel
my hands tied now. Perhaps a kindly Providence put us both on
the Beach at the right moment! Who knows?
“The lights begin to twinkle on the rocks”! I’ve told —— and
others that the 2 keels to 1 policy is of inestimable value because it
eliminates the United States Navy, which never ought to be
mentioned—criminal folly to do so—Also it gives us such an ample
margin as to allow for discount!
The insidious game is to have an enquiry into Ship Designs,
which means delay and no money!
Two immense episodes are doing Damocles over the Navy just
now. I had settled to shove my colleagues over the precipice about
both of them, but as you know I left hurriedly to get in Wilson—so
incomparably good! We pushed them over the precipice about
Water Tube Boilers, the Turbine, the Dreadnought, the Scrapping
[of ships that could neither fight nor run away], the Nucleus Crews
—the Redistribution of the Fleet, &c., &c. In each and all it was
Athanasius contra mundum, but each and all a magnificent
success; so also these two waiting portents full of immense
developments.
1. Oil Engines and internal combustion, about which I so
dilated at our dinner and bored you. Since that night (July 11th)
Bloom & Voss in Germany have received an order to build a Motor
Liner for the Atlantic Trade. No engineers, no stokers, and no
funnels, no boilers! Only a d—d chauffeur! The economy
prodigious! as the Germans say “Kolossal billig”! But what will it be
for War? Why! all the past pales before the prospect!!! I say to
McKenna: “Shove ’em over the precipice! Shove!” But he’s all
alone, poor devil!
The Second is that this Democratic Country won’t stand 99 per
cent. at least of her Naval Officers being drawn from the “Upper
Ten.” It’s amazing to me that anyone should persuade himself that
an aristocratic Service can be maintained in a Democratic State.
The true democratic principle is Napoleon’s: “La carrière ouverte
aux talents!” The Democracy will shortly realise this, and there will
be a dangerous and mischievous agitation. The secret of
successful administration is the intelligent anticipation of agitation.
Again I say to McKenna “Shove!!! Shove them over the precipice.”
I have the plan all cut and dried.
The pressure won’t come from inside the Navy but from
outside—an avalanche like a.d. 1788 (the French Revolution)—
and will sweep away a lot more than desirable! It is essentially a
political question rather than a Naval question proper. It is all so
easy, only the d—d Tory prejudices stand in the way! But I gave
you a paper about all this printed at Portsmouth, so won’t bore you
with more. I am greatly inclined to leave the Defence Committee
and move out in the open on these two vital questions on the Navy.
The one affects its fighting efficiency as much as the other. I am
doing the mole, and certain upheavals will appear shortly, but it
wants a Leader in the open!

* * * * *
1911.
May 1st.

... I want you to think over getting the Prime Minister to

originate an enquiry for a great British Governmental Wireless
Monopoly, or rather I would say “English Speaking” Monopoly! No
one at the Admiralty or elsewhere has as yet any the least idea of
the immense revolution both for Peace and War purposes which
will be brought about by the future development of wireless!... The
point is that this scheme wants to be engineered by the Biggest
Boss, i.e. the Prime Minister.... Believe me the wireless in the
future is the soul and spirit of Peace and War, and therefore must
be in the hands of the Committee of Defence! You can’t cut the air!
You can cut a telegraph cable!

* * * * *
1911.
June 25th.
Bad Nauheim.

... You will see in the Standard of May 29th the London
Correspondent of the Irish Times lets out about Lord Fisher and
war arrangements, but as the Standard in the very same issue
makes this announcement in big type: “We (Great Britain) are in
the satisfactory position of having twice as many Dreadnoughts in
commission as Germany and a number greater by one unit than
the whole of the rest of the world put together!” I don’t think there is
the very faintest fear of war! How wonderfully Providence guides
England! Just when there is a quite natural tendency to ease down
our Naval endeavours comes Agadir!

“Time and the Ocean and some Guiding Star

In High Cabal have made us what we are!”

“The Greatest Power on ’Airth,’” as Mr. Champ Clarke would

say! (You ought to meet Champ Clarke.) He is likely to succeed
Taft as President, but I put my money on Woodrow Wilson. He is
Bismarck and Moltke rolled into one!... I need not say that I remain
in the closest bonds with the Admiralty. I never did a wiser thing
than coming abroad and remaining abroad and working like a
mole. I shall not return till July, 1912. Most damnable efforts
against me continue in full swing: nevertheless like Gideon—“Faint
yet pursuing” is my motto.... And yet because in 1909 at the
Guildhall when our Naval supremacy had been arranged for in the
Navy Estimates of the year I said to my countrymen “Sleep quiet in
your beds!” I was vehemently vilified with malignant truculence,
and only yesterday I got a letter from an Aristocrat of the
Aristocrats, saying he had heard it stated by a Man of Eminence
the day before that I was in the pay of Germany! It is curious that I
can’t get over the personal great blank I feel in the death of our late
blessed Friend King Edward! There was something in the charm of
his heart that still chains one to his memory—some magnetic
touch!

* * * * *
1911.
Sept. 20th.
Lucerne.

Through dancing with a sweet American (and indeed they are

truly delightful, especially if you have the same partner all the
evening!) I hear via a Bremen multi-millionaire that though the most
optimistic official assurances of peace emanate from Berlin yet
there is the most extreme nervousness amongst the German
business men because of the revelation to them of the French
power both financially and fightingly, so unexpected by them. I
suppose if a Pitt or a Palmerston had now been guiding our
destinies we should have war. They would say any Peace would
be a bad Peace because of the latent damnable feeling in
Germany against England. It won’t be France any more, it will be
England that will be the red rag for the German Bull! And as we
never were so strong as at present, then Pitt & Co. would say the
present is the time to fight. Personally I am confident of Peace. I
happen to know in a curious way (but quite certainly) that the
Germans are in a blue funk of the British Navy and are quite
assured that 942 German merchant steamers would be “gobbled
up” in the first 48 hours of war, and also the d—d uncertainty of
when and where a hundred thousand troops embarked in
transports and kept “in the air” might land! N.B.—There’s a lovely
spot only 90 miles from Berlin! Anyhow they would demobilize
about a million German soldiers! But I am getting “off the line” now!
I really sat down to write and tell you of a two days’ visit paid to me
here by the new American Ambassador to Berlin. He is a faithful
friend. He is very, very pro-English (he has such a lovely daughter
whom I have been dancing with, a perfect gem! if she don’t turn
Wilhelm’s head I’ll eat my hat!). My friend was American
Ambassador at Constantinople when I was Commander-in-Chief of
the Mediterranean Fleet—you know it was a ticklish time then, at
the worst of the Boer War and the British Navy kept the Peace!
That old Sultan [Abdul Hamid] told me so, and gave me a 500-
guinea diamond star, bless him! and he called Lord Salisbury a d—
d fool for having left him in the lurch and for having said that
“England had put her money on the wrong horse” in backing
Turkey. The Turks being the one people in the whole world to be
England’s fast (and if put to it) only friend! Well, my dear Friend!
Leishman saw this then in 1899, and sees it now, and hence we
were locked up for hours in a secret room here! It all bears
immensely on the present Franco-German Crisis! That “greater-
than-Bismarck” who is now German Ambassador at
Constantinople (Marschall von Bieberstein), and who is the real
director of German policy (Waechter is only his factotum! as I will
prove to you presently!) sees his rear and flanks quite safe by
having the Turks in the palm of his hand (as Leishman describes
it!) and so has been led to bluff at Agadir—but those choice words
of Lloyd George upset the German apple-cart in a way it was never
upset before! (I suppose they were “written out” words and Cabinet
words, and they were d—d fine words!) Before I go on with the
next bit of my letter I must explain to you that Leishman is a very
great friend and admirer of Marschall von Bieberstein and also of
Kiderlen-Waechter, the present German Foreign Minister. When
Marschall went on his annual 4 months’ leave from Constantinople
he always had Waechter to take his place while away, who was
then the German Minister at Bucharest! Leishman is also an ardent
admirer of the German Emperor, and he is also the most intimate
friend possessed by Mr. Philander Knox, the American Secretary of
State, who has forced Leishman to Berlin when he was in Paradise
at Rome (at all events his family were!) Well! dear Friend, it’s a
good thing that Leishman loves England. I couldn’t possibly write to
Sir E. Grey what I am writing to you (I shouldn’t write to you except
that this letter goes through France only!) and it would be simply
fatal to Leishman if it ever leaked out about his conversations with
me, but his heart is with us. I knew this when I spent many weeks
at Constantinople (and we had no friends then, 1899 and 1900!).
He says our Turkish policy is the laughing stock of Diplomacy!
“Every schoolboy knows” that we have a Mahomedan Existence
and the Turks love us, but all we do is to kick their ——! As
Leishman truly says, the Germans were in the dust by the
deposition of Abdul Hamid and England was “all” to the New Turks,
but slowly Marschall has worked his way up again, and the
Germans again possess the Turks, instead of England. The
Turkish Army, the very finest fighting army in the world, was ours
for the asking, and “Peace—perfect Peace” in India, Egypt and
Persia; but we’ve chucked it all away because we have had d—d
fools as our Ambassadors! But how can it be otherwise unless you
put in men from outside, like for instance Bryce at Washington?
Our strength is Mahomedan, but we are too d—d Christian to see
it! and fool about Armenian atrocities and Bulgarian horrors! Tories
and Radicals are both the same. Isn’t it wonderful how we get
along! I repeat again to you my copyright lines:—

“Time and the Ocean and some Guiding Star

In High Cabal have made us what we are!”

Look at Delagoa Bay, that might have been ours—indeed was

ours only we “fooled” it away! Look at Lord Granville and the
Cameroons! Well! I haven’t given Leishman away, I don’t think! The
real German bonne bouche was the complete belt across Africa,
but this only if the right of pre-emption as regards the Belgian
Congo could have been acquired. I simply tremble at the
consequences if the British Redcoats are to be planted on the
Vosges Frontier [meaning the dread of Conscription and a huge
Army for Continental Warfare].

* * * * *
1911.
October 10th.
Lucerne.
 ... I yesterday had a long letter from McKenna begging me to
return and “put the gloves on again,” and in view of his arguments I
am going to do so when A. K. Wilson vanishes early next year! It is,
however, distasteful to me. I’ve had a lovely time here.

* * * * *
1911.
October 29th.
Reigate Priory, Surrey.

... I am here 3 days with Winston and many of the Cabinet. I

got a very urgent letter to come here, and I think my advice has
been fully and completely digested, but don’t say a word, please, to
a soul! I am returning direct to Lucerne on Wednesday, after
Tuesday at Kilverstone.

* * * * *
1911.
November 9th.
Lucerne.

These are very ticklish times indeed! I have got to be extremely

careful. I must not get between Winston and A. K. W. in any way—
it would not only be very wrong but fatal to any smooth working. So
I begged Winston not to write to me. With extreme reluctance I
went to Reigate as I did, but McKenna urged me on the grounds of
the good of the Navy, and from what Winston has since said to a
friend of mine I think I did right in going.

* * * * *
1911.
December.
Lucerne.

... I shouldn’t have written again so soon except for just now
seeing in a Paris paper that Sir John French, accompanied by four
Officers, had landed at Calais en route to the French Head
Quarters, and expatiating on the evident intention of joint military
action! Do you remember the classic interview we had with the late
King in his Cabin? If this is on the tapis again then we have
another deep regret for the loss of that sagacious intuition! King
Edward may not have been clever, but he never failed in his
judgment on whose opinion to rely.... Of course there may be
nothing in it! Nor do I think there is the least likelihood of war.
England is far too strong! Yet I daily get letters anticipating my
early return....
I enclose you a letter from ——, received a little time ago. He is
a very eminent Civil Engineer. There is a “dead set” being made to
get the Midshipmen under the new scheme to rebel against
“engineering”! ——, —— & Co. are persistently at it through their
friends in the Fleet, and calling those Midshipmen who go in for
engineering—“Greasers.” The inevitable result of the present
young officers of the Navy disparaging and slighting this chief
necessary qualification of engineering in these engineering days
will be to force the throwing open of entry as officers in the Navy to
all classes of the population and adopting State paid Education
and support till the pay is sufficient to support!

* * * * *
1911.
December 24th.

... I have had a hectic time with four hurricanes crossing the
Channel and balancing on the tight-rope with one end held by
Winston and the other by McKenna, but they both held tight and I
am all right. Without doubt McKenna is a patriot to have
encouraged ME to help Winston as he has done! I have not heard
what the War Staff is doing. It does not trouble me. My sole object
was to ensure Jellicoe being Commander-in-Chief of the Home
Fleet on December 19th, 1913, and that is being done by his being
appointed Second-in-Command of the Home Fleet, and he will
automatically be C.-in-C. in two years from that date. All the recent
changes revolved round Jellicoe, and No one sees it!

* * * * *
1912.
Jan. 3rd. Naples.
 ... I fully agree with you about the Navy want of first-class
Intellects. Concentration and Discipline combine to cramp the Sea
Officer.... Great views don’t get grasped. Winston urges me to
come back, but he forgets the greatest of all the great Napoleonic
sayings: “J’ordonne, ou je me tais.” Besides, you see, I was the
First Violin. However, Winston is splendidly receptive. I can’t
possibly write what has happened, but he is a brave man. And as
16 Admirals have been scrapped I am more popular than ever!!! A
lovely woman two days ago sent me this riddle: “Why are you like
Holland?” “Because you lie low and are dammed all round.” But
there it is. Jellicoe will be Admiralissimo when Armageddon comes
along, and everything that was done revolved round that, and no
one has seen it. He has all the attributes of Nelson, and his age.
 [By kind permission of “The Daily Express.”

The Anniversary of Trafalgar.

Nelson (in Trafalgar Square):—“I was on
my way down to lend them a hand myself,
but if Jacky Fisher’s taking on the job
there’s no need for me to be nervous, I’ll get
back on my pedestal.”
Nelson looking up Sir John Fisher on his first
day as First Sea Lord, Trafalgar Day, 1904.
 * * * * *
1912.
March 7th.
Naples.

You nearly saw me to-day, as a King’s Messenger roused me

out the day before yesterday with papers I really thought I could
not cope with by letter; but as obviously the object was to avoid the
gossip my appearance in London would cause I did my best with
my pen. But I see clearly I am in the middle of the whirlpool again
and must force what I feel a great disinclination for and participate
once more in the fight. I have had strangely intimate opportunities
of learning the very inside of German feeling towards England. It is
bitterly intense and widespread. Without any doubt whatever the
Germans thought they were going to squeeze France out of
Morocco. You can take that as a fact, no matter what lies are told
by the German Foreign Minister; and Clemenceau’s unpublished
speech would have proved it, but he said enough. And how
treacherous to England was M. Caillaux.—What a dirty business!
Anyhow, as a German Admiral of high repute wrote confidentially
and privately a few days since: “German public opinion is roused in
a way I had not before thought possible.” And as far as I can make
out, the very worst possible thing was Haldane’s visit—a British
Cabinet Minister crawling up the back stairs of the German Foreign
Office in carpet slippers! and judging from all that is told me, it has
made the Germans worse than ever, and for a variety of quite
opposite reasons, all producing the same result. Any more
Heligolands would mean certain war. It’s very peculiar how we
have left our impregnable position we occupied before Haldane’s
visit, to take up a most humiliating, weak and dangerous one.

* * * * *
1912.
April 2nd.

... As you say, Winston has done splendidly. He and I last

November discussed every brick of his speech in Devonport
Dockyard while visiting the 33-knot Lion-Dreadnought by night
alone together, and don’t accuse me of too much egotism, but he
stopped dramatically on the Dockyard stones and said to me
“You’re a Great Man!”... We are lagging behind in out-
Dreadnoughting the Dreadnought! A plunge of course—a huge
plunge—but so was the Dreadnought—so was the Turbine—so
was the water-tube boiler, and last of all so was the 13½-inch gun
which now holds the field, and the whole Board of Admiralty (bar
Jellicoe) and all the experts dead against it—but we plunged! So it
is now—we want more speed—less armour—a 15-inch gun—more
sub-division—oil only—and chauffeurs instead of Engineers and
Stokers, and a Dreadnought that will go round the world without
requiring to replenish fuel! The Non-Pareil! Winston says he’ll call
her the “Fisher!” I owe more than I can say to McKenna. I owe
nearly as much to Winston for scrapping a dozen Admirals on
December 5th last so as to get Jellicoe 2nd in Command of the
Home Fleet. If war comes before 1914, then Jellicoe will be Nelson
at the Battle of St. Vincent: if it comes in 1914 then he’ll be Nelson
at Trafalgar!...
Again, I’ve had quite affectionate letters from three important
Admirals. Why should I come home and filch their credit? All this is
to explain to you why I keep abroad, as you ask me what are my
future plans. Your letter in The Times on the German Book quite
excellent. Bernstorff’s book is even more popular in Germany: “The
War Between England and Germany”—with the picture of the
“Dreadnought” with all her guns trained for action! Every little petty
German newspaper is dead-on for war with England! that I can
assure you of! So anything would kindle a war!... The banner
unfurled on October 21st, 1904, by the d—d scoundrel who on that
day became First Sea Lord had inscribed on it:
“The fighting efficiency of the Fleet”
and
“Its instant readiness for War.”
and, as Winston bravely said, that is now the case and no credit to
himself, but he ought to have gone further back than McKenna for
the credit. It was Balfour! He saw me through—no one else would
allow 160 ships to be scrapped, &c., &c., &c. But you’ve had
enough!

* * * * *
1912.
April 25th.

... When I was a Delegate at the Hague Conference of 1899—

the first Conference—I had very animated conversations, which,
however, to my lasting regret it was deemed inexpedient to place
on record (on account of their violence, I believe!), regarding
“Trading with the Enemy.” I stated the primordial fact that “The
Essence of War is Violence; Moderation in War is Imbecility.” And
then in my remarks I went on to observe, as is stated by Mr.
Norman Angell in the “Great Illusion,” where he holds me up as a
Terror! and as misguided—perhaps I went a little too far when I
said I would boil the prisoners in oil and murder the innocent in
cold blood, &c., &c., &c. ... but it’s quite silly not to make War
damnable to the whole mass of your enemy’s population, which of
course is the secret of maintaining the right of Capture of Private
Property at Sea. As you say, it must be proclaimed in the most
public and most authoritative manner that direct and indirect trade
between Great Britain, including every part of the British Empire,
and Germany must cease in time of war.... When war does come
“Might is Right!” and the Admiralty will know what to do!
Nevertheless, it is a most serious drawback not making public to
the world beforehand what we mean by War! It is astounding how
even very great men don’t understand War! You must go to the
Foreigner to appreciate our Surpassing Predominance as a Nation.
I was closeted for two hours lately—in a locked room—with a great
Foreign Ambassador, who quoted great names to me as being in
agreement with him that never in the History of the World was the
British Nation (as at the present moment) surpassed in power! And
therefore we could do what we liked!... I fully agree with you that
the schemes of the General Staff of the British Army are grotesque.
Their projects last August, had we gone to war, were wild in the
extreme. You will remember a famous interview we two had with
King Edward in his Cabin on board the Royal Yacht—how he
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com