Democratizing CRISPR? Stories, practices, and politics of science and governance on the agricultural gene editing frontier

Abstract

Many trends in agricultural biotechnology have extended fluidly from the first era of genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to the era of gene editing. But the high-profile, explicit, and assertive discourse of democratization with gene editing-especially CRISPR-Cas9-is something new. In this paper, I draw on semi-structured interviews with gene editors, policy analysts, and communications experts as well as with critical academic and civil society experts. I use Science and Technology Studies and political ecology lenses to unpack democratization in three main parts. First is democratizing discourses: On what grounds is CRISPR said to be democratic? Who is saying so? How do dissident communities respond to these narratives? Second is agricultural applications, with a focus on the Innovative Genomics Institute's work in developing gene-edited food crops, including a case of saveable clonal hybrid rice. Third is governance, where I contrast US Department of Agriculture regulations and the CRISPRcon conference as "closed" and "invited" spaces, respectively, for democratic participation. Next, I argue that "created spaces," in which power is held by typically delegitimized actors and ideas, offer an opening for working out democracy on the terrain of biotechnology. I conclude with a set of principles and practices for CRISPR governance based on the idea that democratization of biotechnology requires epistemic justice. By gathering multiple, partial knowledges together, we move beyond narrow risk-benefit framings to better evaluate not just what CRISPR is and does, but what democracy means and whom it serves.

Breaking the impasse: Towards a forward‐looking governance framework for gene editing with plants

“…In the United States, oversight of GM plants as well as conventionally bred plants lies with three US governmental agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 7 In March 2018, the USDA issued a statement declaring that it will not regulate plants under its biotechnology regulations if they are developed with new breeding techniques that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques, provided they are not plants pests or developed using plant pests (USDA, 2018).Consistent with this statement, and in line with the Trump administration's wider pro-innovation, reduce-regulatory burden policy narrative(Kuzma, 2019;Montenegro de Wit, 2020), in June 2019 the agency proposed a draft rule, providing developers with the option to self-determine whether their gene edited plant variety is exempt from regulation and to request written confirmation from the agency that the self-determination is valid. The FDA is currently working on a clarification of its approach to gene-edited plant-derived foods.…”

Differentiated impacts of human interventions on nature

“…that if regulations were not imposed from within, legislation could be anticipated which would probably turn out to be much more restrictive" (Norman, 1975). A viewpoint still common today (Hurlbut, 2018;Montenegro de Wit, 2020).…”

“…Risk includes "the nature, magnitude and likelihood of potential harms" within their "social context, including the attitudes and practices of those (individuals and institutions) involved in managing risk" (Pavone et al, 2011). There is risk in the way risks are described and therefore assessed (Pavone et al, 2011;Montenegro de Wit, 2020). After all, what is "the environment"?…”

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

“…Social science researchers have asserted that new governance forms for GEAF will be necessary since existing regulatory instruments are inadequate to accommodate the complexity of gene editing and its novel risks (Chakradhar, 2015;Jasanoff et al, 2015;Kuzma, 2016;Kofler et al, 2018;Jasanoff and Hurlbut, 2018;Macnaghten and Habets, 2020;Montenegro, 2020a). Hybrid governance models, such as multistakeholder initiatives for agricultural commodities like soy (e.g., Roundtable on Responsible Soy), have developed as a means for nonstate actors to govern global value chains so that production meets certain social, environmental, or economic standards.…”

“…In interviews, many traditional agribiotech industry actors argued that the "overregulation" of GEAF, as they claimed happened with GMOs, would hamper innovation and industry growth. Established biotech companies and conventional agricultural commodity group organizations drew on democratization discourses about GEAF (Bain et al, 2020;Montenegro, 2020a) to express concern that burdensome and costly regulatory approval processes would particularly hamper the ability of public sector plant breeders and smaller biotech start-ups to enter the gene-editing market. Some suggested this would lead to further concentration of larger firms and hinder development of improved staple food crops, both key criticisms of GMOs that pro-biotech industry actors are keen to avoid.…”