The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019,EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology, constructive biology, natural engineering, synthetic genomics and biological engineering. This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.

中文翻译：

---

玫瑰和名字：关于生物技术术语的未决辩论。

关于合成生物学相关学科认知的最大调查（Porcar et al., 2019, EMBO Rep 20）最近显示，西班牙社会对合成生物学一词的认知并不十分积极。另一方面，生物技术甚至基因工程的术语得分相对较高。命名和感知问题是科学感知研究中的经典问题。合成生物学家多年来一直在争论他们的新词（合成生物学，从现在开始是 SB）。甚至在 2006 年的博客中，Rob Carlson 也讨论了新领域的各种标签，例如意向生物学、建设性生物学、自然工程、合成基因组学和生物工程。这种名称的多样性，以及上述公众对合成生物学这一术语的负面看法，引发了一个问题，即该术语本身是否合适，或者在极端情况下，它是否可以被另一个结合了科学共识和公众接受度的术语所取代。