Advancing synthetic biology in African academia: institutional barriers, capacity gaps, and the impact of a pilot online training program

1 Introduction

Synthetic biology is an interdisciplinary field integrating biology, engineering principles, and computational technologies to design novel biological systems or redesign existing ones for useful purposes. Over the past 2 decades, the field has matured into a domain with applications spanning from precision medicine, climate-resilient agriculture, and biomanufacturing (Cameron et al., 2014; Flores Bueso and Tangney, 2017). Global investment in synthetic biology continues to increase, particularly in North America, Europe and parts of Asia, where research ecosystems and enabling regulatory frameworks support its application (Clarke and Kitney, 2016; Mao et al., 2021). However, participation across the African continent is comparatively limited. Africa continues to face several challenges, including food insecurity, infectious diseases, and environmental challenges, where synthetic biology offers solutions, such as climate-resilient crops, vaccine development and diagnostics (Wang et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2023). Realising these opportunities, however, requires more than access to technology; it depends on skilled human capital, infrastructure, and enabling regulatory frameworks.

Academic institutions are central to advancing technology by driving research, education, and policy engagement. Yet many African universities and research centres face constraints, including limited funding, under-equipped laboratories and insufficient training of personnel (Igborgbor et al., 2024; Mudziwapasi et al., 2022). Capacity-building gaps in higher education systems can therefore directly limit the expansion of the synthetic biology research ecosystem. In addition, regulatory frameworks governing emerging technologies are embedded in or adapted from existing policies governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, synthetic biology introduces technical and ethical considerations that may not be fully addressed by current regulatory structures (Mudziwapasi et al., 2022; Rhodes and Mandivenyi, 2020). These educational and regulatory gaps may limit the growth of synthetic biology research and innovation across the continent.

Despite emerging initiatives to increase awareness and collaboration in synthetic biology, assessments of institutional capacity and stakeholder perceptions within African academia remain scarce. Understanding how students, lecturers, and researchers perceive synthetic biology and identifying barriers to its implementation is critical for developing targeted capacity-building and policy strategies. With this rationale and to further identify other gaps that could be limiting synthetic biology applications in Africa, we undertook a multi-country survey of academic stakeholders across 17 African countries to assess knowledge gaps, perceptions and institutional barriers related to synthetic biology. Furthermore, we evaluated a pilot online Synthetic biology crash course as a scalable education intervention designed to strengthen synthetic biology literacy among students and early-career researchers. The study’s findings provide evidence-based insights into advancing research capacity and the readiness of regulatory frameworks for synthetic biology in African academia.

2 Materials and methods

The study employed a stratified purposive online survey to assess awareness, perceptions, barriers, and capacity-building efforts among academic institutions in Africa. The study was designed to capture broad trends and in-depth perspectives from lecturers, students and research centres. This survey took 6 weeks, and it was disseminated via emails and social media.

2.1 Survey design

The survey instrument was developed from existing literature on perceptions of synthetic biology, and then the questions were adapted to the African context. It consisted of three Sections: 1) knowledge and perceptions, 2) barriers and 3) crash course online evaluation. The questions for sections one and two were designed for university lecturers, students and research assistants from the different regions of Africa. Section three was designed for students who attended the SynBio4ALL online crash course on synthetic biology. The instrument was pre-tested with a small sample to ensure clarity and relevance.

2.2 Participant selection and sampling

The sampling criteria utilised a stratified purposive sampling method targeting life science students, academicians, researchers, and policymakers across African universities. The online survey link was distributed via email and social media to reach the targeted participants across Africa. 140 participants responded to the survey within 6 weeks of publishing the link online and emailing a few students and key lecturers at African academic institutions.

2.3 Data collection

The study survey was left open for 6 weeks to ensure data was collected from all regions before the survey closed. The time provided for the survey led to a substantial representation from different regions of Africa.

2.4 Data analysis

Quantitative survey data from closed-ended questions were analysed using descriptive statistics (e.g., frequency and percentages). Qualitative data from open-ended questions were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach to allow core themes to emerge directly from the raw text. Following initial familiarisation and line-by-line coding, similar codes were iteratively grouped into overarching themes. Each overarching theme was presented alongside illustrative quotes from the respondent to provide contextual depth of the responses.

2.5 Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was voluntary, and respondents were informed about the purpose of the research before completing the survey. Participants also had the option to opt out of the surveys at any time. To protect participants, responses were anonymised prior to analysis, and no identifying information is reported in this manuscript. Data were stored securely and used only for publication purposes.

3 Results

3.1 Demographics of participants

There were 140 responses to the questionnaire, and most respondents were in the 18–34-year age bracket (84%), with the target population being university students and lecturers (Figure 1A). Most of the responses were from the students and other professionals, contributing to 94% of the responses. Lecturers accounted for only 6% of the overall responses (Figure 1B). The low coverage among lecturers may be due to our sampling criteria, which focused on emailing more students than lecturers. In addition, the activeness of students on the internet, which was another method of questionnaire dissemination, might have favored them. Regarding career domains, a minority of the participants indicated business, engineering, and social sciences as their areas of the profession. However, over half of the respondents had careers in the life sciences, health, and agriculture fields (Figure 1C).

Most of the respondents were from the Eastern African Region (75), followed by the Western region (47), the Southern region, and the Northern region (4), with the fewest respondents (Figure 2).

3.2 Knowledge and perception of respondents on synthetic biology

Based on the source of synthetic biology knowledge, 73% indicated they had heard about synthetic biology through their universities and internet searches. The exposure of most of the participants to the SynBio4ALL courses prior to this study might have contributed to this high percentage. The rest stated friends, media, and others as the medium through which they learned about this field (Figure 3A). Of the 140 respondents, 69% highly supported implementing synthetic biology projects in Africa, and only 5% were unsupportive (Figure 3B). Over 74% of the respondents reported being extremely familiar to slightly familiar with synthetic biology (Figure 3C), indicating that a larger proportion may have heard of or been involved in synthetic biology research.

Participants largely viewed synthetic biology as a practical tool for addressing major societal challenges. As shown in Table 1, the most perceived potential was health and medical innovation (50.0%) and agriculture and food security (35.7%), followed by economic and industrial development (26.4%) and environmental sustainability (21.4%). Overall, respondents framed synthetic biology as highly relevant to disease control, crop improvement, local production, and environmental problem-solving.

TABLE 1. Overarching themes describing participants’ perceptions of how synthetic biology could contribute to their priority areas (n = 140).

Participants’ concerns about synthetic biology were diverse but centred most strongly on Resource, Access and Capacity Constraints (32.5%) (Table 2). Other key concerns included ethical concerns and biosecurity (27.0), biosafety and environmental risks (16.7%), and governance and equity issues (8.7%). Overall, these responses reflect cautious support for the field alongside concern about safety, responsible use, and practical accessibility.

TABLE 2. Overarching themes describing participants’ main concerns about synthetic biology (n = 126).

Figure 3: Potential and concerns about synthetic biology applications (A) rating of the potential of synthetic biology, [1- very low potential, 2- low potential, 3- moderate potential, high potential, 5- very high potential], (B) potential of the most rated fields, and (C) concerns about synthetic biology applications.

3.3 Barriers and gaps that hinder the advancement of synthetic biology

The next section of the survey focused on barriers and gaps that hinder the advancement of synthetic biology on the continent. More than 50% of the respondents highlighted insufficient training opportunities and lack of access to synthetic biology education as gaps impeding the enhancement of synthetic biology in Africa (Figure 4). The absence and/or inadequacy of regulatory frameworks for synthetic biology work were also observed and identified by more than a quarter of the respondents as an obstacle to implementing synthetic biology.

Table 3 shows that access to laboratory practice was constrained mainly by structural barriers. Limited Equipment and Infrastructure was the dominant theme (69.4%), with additional challenges relating to Restricted Access and low Institutional Support (32.2%), Funding and High Costs (26.4%), and Skills and Training Gaps (19.8%). This pattern indicates that participants’ engagement with synthetic biology is less restricted by a lack of interest than by limited practical access.

TABLE 3. Overarching themes describing barriers to accessing and using laboratory or research facilities for synthetic biology teaching and practical work (n = 121).

Regarding integrating synthetic biology techniques into university curricula, only 40 respondents (Figure 5) reported having them integrated, which is supported by the modules shown in Table 3.

Where synthetic biology was described as integrated into teaching, the most prominent theme was Molecular Biology Fundamentals (47.6%), followed by Genetic Engineering and Gene Editing (28.6%) and Systems, Protein, and Metabolic Engineering (23.8%) (Table 4). Overall, the findings indicate that where synthetic biology is taught, instruction is centred mainly on core molecular methods, with more advanced areas appearing less frequently.

TABLE 4. Overarching themes describing the techniques taught where synthetic biology is integrated into courses (n = 42).

As shown in Table 5, barriers to curriculum integration were most often associated with Resource and Facility Limitations (29.0%), Low Awareness and Institutional Readiness (23.0%), Curriculum Rigidity and Weak Practical Integration (20.0%), and Faculty Expertise Gaps (17.0%). These findings suggest that the expansion of synthetic biology in formal education depends on broader institutional preparedness rather than curriculum change alone.

TABLE 5. Overarching themes describing barriers to integrating synthetic biology into existing institutional curricula (n = 100).

3.4 SynBio4ALL synthetic biology online crash course evaluation

In the final part of the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate Synbio4ALL Africa’s beginner and intermediate synthetic biology courses. Sixty-four per cent (90) of the participants had participated in SynBio4ALL Africa courses (Figure 6A), 48% of whom had participated in the intermediate course, 24% participated in both classes, and 28% attended only the beginner’s course (Figure 6A). The survey data were compared with our enrolment lists to validate the numbers. The teaching style and quality of the course were rated excellent by more than 50 respondents (Figure 6B), and the top 2 skills acquired during the training were synthetic biology principles and experimental design (Figure 6C).

Over 90% of students reported that the courses improved their understanding of synthetic biology, and 64% indicated that the courses positively influenced their career goals (Figure 7). The students’ rate of understanding synthetic biology changed significantly after taking the beginner and intermediate courses. We had 36 students with limited knowledge before the course (Figure 8A). By the end of the course, only one student indicated persistent limited expertise in the subject area (Figure 8B).

After completing the courses, most of the students felt confident about applying synthetic biology skills and knowledge in their research areas (Figure 9B), and 99% were willing to recommend the course to others, as shown in Figure 9A.

The students rated the course as both good and excellent, with an average of 4.34/5.0 as illustrated in Figure 10.

Seminar-related responses were dominated by Expanded Knowledge and Understanding (50.0%), with smaller themes relating to Networking and Opportunity Exposure (15.5%), Motivation and Career Confidence (10.3%), and Collaboration and Transferable Skills (10.3) (Table 6). This indicates that seminars primarily served as spaces for awareness-building and also fostered professional orientation and engagement with synthetic biology.

TABLE 6. Overarching themes describing what participants reported gaining from synthetic biology seminars (n = 58).

4 Discussion

4.1 Knowledge and perception of synthetic biology in Africa academia

This study provides descriptive evidence that awareness of synthetic biology in African academic institutions is emerging, particularly among young scientists and early-career researchers. However, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory rather than statistically generalizable, given that the analysis relied primarily on descriptive statistics and the sample was unevenly distributed across regions and respondent categories.

The majority of respondents (84%) were aged 18–34 years, reflecting strong engagement among university students and early-career researchers; however, this pattern is also likely to reflect the study’s recruitment focus on higher education institutions. Similar age distributions have been reported in Nigeria, where younger populations show greater engagement with emerging fields (Igborgbor et al., 2024). That study attributes the exposure to media and contemporary education as a basis for the high engagement at a young age. This pattern also aligns with broader evidence indicating that younger generations are more likely to engage with emerging scientific and technological trends (Rasa and Laherto, 2022). At the same time, the age profile of the present sample should be interpreted cautiously, as it is shaped by the recruitment approach rather than by a representative cross-section of African Academia. The occupational composition of the participants further narrows the scope of interpretation. Approximately 94% of the respondents were students or early-career researchers, while only 6% were lecturers. Consequently, the findings are more reflective of trainee and junior academic perspectives than of senior faculty members.

Geographically, the sample was also unevenly distributed: approximately 54% of the respondents originated from Eastern Africa, whereas Northern Africa was only represented by four people. The recruitment strategy may also have contributed to this distribution, as participants from these regions were more likely to access the online forms via social media networks and SynBio4ALL outreach channels. In addition, SynBioALL has always had a high number of respondents from the East African region for its other projects, indicating the awareness in the region. Although this pattern limits generalizability across the continent, it suggests that synthetic biology discourse is gaining stronger traction in specific regions. Countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa continue to embrace these new technologies and have shown traction over the years (Igborgbor et al., 2024; Otim et al., 2023). Nevertheless, the present study does not support the comparative claims across the African regions and should therefore be read as a hypothesis-generating rather than a continental representative.

Internet-based platforms were the primary source of synthetic biology knowledge, surpassing formal university curricula. This highlights a gap in the structured integration of academic research. Although online platforms such as Coursera, edX, and other open repositories provide accessible, up-to-date content, over-reliance on these digital internet sources might expose learners to limited mentorship, misinformation and practical training (Raj et al., 2022; Romero-López et al., 2021). Universities can provide practical training; however, students take time to find information beyond their class notes, opting for the Internet for immediate access to current learning resources (Gernsbacher, 2014). These findings support the need for hybrid educational models that combine digital learning with university-based laboratory training, enabling students to gain both conceptual understanding and practical competence.

The thematic findings further showed that respondents associated synthetic biology with several areas of potential benefit, particularly health and medical innovation, agriculture and food security, economic and industrial development, and environmental sustainability. This is contrary to previous findings from Ghana and South Africa that highlight the optimism towards agro-biotechnology applications, particularly the development of GMOs (Gastrow et al., 2018; Zakaria et al., 2014). Nevertheless, positive perceptions alone might not translate into widespread adoption, as policy barriers, limited infrastructure and gaps in training remain significant constraints on the continent.

Concerns regarding biosafety and environmental risks, ethical implications and potential misuse, and unequal governance of synthetic biology applications were also prominent, as reflected in Table 2. Similar observations have been reported in stakeholder studies in Nigeria and South Africa, where safety, ethics and regulation remain central to public acceptance (Igborgbor et al., 2024; Rhodes and Mandivenyi, 2020). Addressing these concerns requires not only regulatory frameworks but also sustainable public engagement and clear communication about benefits and risks.

4.2 Barriers and gaps to advancing synthetic biology

Inadequate laboratory equipment and infrastructure, limited funding, and training gaps were the most frequently highlighted barriers, as shown in Table 3. Respondents emphasised that insufficient financial resources restrict laboratory establishment, equipment acquisition and research continuity. This finding aligns with broader analysis of biotechnology and synthetic biology capacity in Africa, which describes the cyclical relationship between low funding and limited research output (Igborgbor et al., 2024; Mudziwapasi et al., 2022). While countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa rank among the top three African countries receiving the most research funding (Caelers and Okoth, 2023), most African countries continue to face funding disparities. Even within countries that are relatively better represented in funding landscapes, particularly Nigeria, which was represented in this study, participants still reported persistent constraints related to equipment availability, laboratory access and financial support, indicating that resource limitations remain widespread across the continent. The absence of well-equipped research facilities reduces the opportunities for undergraduate and postgraduate training, thus limiting the development of skilled synthetic biologists.

Integration of synthetic biology into the formal curricula was identified as a critical step towards capacity building, as shown in Tables 4, 5. Only a minority of respondents reported exposure to synthetic biology modules within their academic programs, and responses were mainly from participants in the Eastern region. Although this pattern is likely to be influenced by the overrepresentation of East African respondents in our sample, it may also indicate preliminary efforts toward curriculum development in the region. Given the limited responses from other regions, this observation should be interpreted cautiously; however, it raises the possibility of East Africa’s progress in incorporating synthetic biology into higher education. Importantly, the findings in Table 4 suggest that, when synthetic biology modules are integrated, courses are centred mainly on molecular biology fundamentals such as PCR, recombinant DNA technologies, and gene editing, with few references to systems, protein, or metabolic engineering. Early curricular integration has been shown to increase technical skill competence and knowledge in emerging fields of science (Diep et al., 2021; Menard et al., 2024). Strengthening interdisciplinary training across undergraduate and postgraduate levels may therefore break the cycle of limited expertise in synthetic biology.

4.3 Regulatory and policy considerations

The concern-related findings also point to the importance of regulatory and governance issues, mostly around biosafety and biosecurity, ethics and equitable access to benefits. Regulatory frameworks that govern synthetic biology and other biotechnology fields remain lacking in most African countries. In many cases, oversight of synthetic biology is embedded in existing GMO regulations. While countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa have established regulatory frameworks for GMOs (de Beer and Wynberg, 2018; Oh and Ezezika, 2014), these frameworks may not fully address the distinct technical dimensions of synthetic biology research. Thus, there is a need to develop regulations to ensure safety and address other ethical concerns. Respondents emphasised the need for policies and regulations to enhance safety and build public trust in synthetic biology innovation. Regional collaboration and harmonisation of biosafety and biosecurity policies could support a more coherent development pathway across African countries (Nyakairu, 2024). Nyakairu’s study found that some efforts are underway to develop a regulatory framework to address challenges highlighted by the communities. Even with these emerging discussions, there are still ongoing challenges in this domain, as indicated in the study.

4.4 Impact of online capacity building interventions

The evaluation of the online crash course organised by the SynBio4ALL organisation demonstrated that online training can improve awareness and perceived competence, with over 90% of participants reporting increased knowledge of synthetic biology concepts. Most respondents reported increased confidence in applying the concepts they learned to their daily research and expressed interest in pursuing careers in synthetic biology. This is shown in findings on seminar-related themes in Table 6, where participants most reported expanded knowledge and understanding, but also described gains in networking, motivation and collaboration-related skills. While self-reported improvements from theory lectures might not replace skills assessments, these findings suggest that structured online modules can serve as an effective means of expanding access to synthetic biology education. Still, they are insufficient on their own for long-term capacity development without laboratory practice, curriculum integration, and institutional support. The reflections captured in Table 5 indicate that participants still require more awareness initiatives, practical training opportunities and funding support.

5 Conclusion

Advancing synthetic biology in African academia requires coordinated action across education, infrastructure and policy domains. First, increased investment in research infrastructure and funding strategies is vital to support laboratory development and training. Secondly, integrating synthetic biology into the formal curricula can strengthen early exposure to its techniques and skills. Thirdly, harmonising biosafety and biosecurity frameworks will build public trust and enable the responsible use of technologies. Lastly, the positive response to the online crash course highlights the potential of a blended, online and practical, hands-on training model to expand access to foundational knowledge in synthetic biology.

Beyond institutional policies and infrastructure investments, the long-term trajectory of synthetic biology in Africa will also depend on deeper societal factors that support scientific development. Demographic trends suggest that the continent may possess a substantial reservoir of future scientific talent. Africa currently has one of the youngest populations in the world, and by mid-century, a significant share of the global working-age population is expected to reside on the continent. Historically, many transformative scientific and technological advances have emerged from researchers in the early stages of their careers, when intellectual flexibility, risk-taking, and openness to new paradigms are often at their peak. In this context, expanding access to high-quality STEM education and research training could allow a growing cohort of young African scientists to play an increasingly important role in the global development of synthetic biology.

At the same time, the rapid expansion of digital infrastructure and online education platforms creates opportunities for new models of scientific training and collaboration. Hybrid educational ecosystems combining virtual learning, distributed research networks, and regional research hubs focused on pressing societal challenges - such as sustainable agriculture, climate resilience, and infectious disease - may allow African institutions to develop innovative pathways for scientific capacity building. If supported by appropriate investment, mentorship networks, and regulatory frameworks, these developments could enable African researchers not only to participate in the global synthetic biology community but also to contribute novel perspectives and locally relevant innovations.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsybi.2026.1813106/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Ned Budisa, University of Manitoba, Canada

Reviewed by: Brian Paul Ingalls, University of Waterloo, Canada

Iain George, Danone North America, United States