Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Via a historical reconstruction, this paper primarily demonstrates how the societal debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) gradually extended in terms of actors involved and concerns reflected. It is argued that the implementation of recombinant DNA technology out of the laboratory and into civil society entailed a ''complex of concerns.'' In this complex, distinctions between environmental, agricultural, socio-economic, and ethical issues proved to be blurred. This fueled the confusion between the wider debate on genetic modification and the risk assessment of transgenic crops in the European Union. In this paper, the lasting skeptical and/or ambivalent attitude of Europeans towards agro-food biotechnology is interpreted as signaling an ongoing social request -and even a quest -for an evaluation of biotechnology with Sense and Sensibility. In this (re)quest, a broader-than-scientific dimension is sought for that allows addressing the GMO debate in a more ''sensible'' way, whilst making ''sense'' of the different stances taken in it. Here, the restyling of the European regulatory frame on transgenic agro-food products and of science communication models are discussed and taken to be indicative of the (re)quest to move from a merely scientific evaluation and risk-based policy towards a socially more robust evaluation that takes the ''non-scientific'' concerns at stake in the GMO debate seriously.

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

“…The disparity in adoption rate of GM crops between the EU and the rest of the world is generally attributed both to societal and political opposition towards agro-food biotechnology and to complex regulatory approval procedures in the EU (Chapotin and Wolt, 2007;Herring, 2008). In the mid-1990s, the advent of GM crops and their corresponding agro-food products aroused strong societal concerns (Levidow et al, 2005;Devos et al, 2006Devos et al, , 2008dLevidow and Carr, 2007). Fostered by several highly publicised and successive food safety crises, public suspicion towards regulatory authorities, scientists and technocratic decision-making grew (Lofstedt, 2006).…”

Reconstruction of the Ethical Debate on Naturalness in Discussions About Plant-Biotechnology

“…(Buchanan. 2000;Gaskell 2001;Goven 2006;Inglis and Bone 2006;Devos et al 2008). We believe that these past issues remain current in contemporary debates about agricultural innovation.…”

Clonal variation in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and in transgenic silver birch (Betula pendula)

“…The propagation of genetically modified (GM) crops and forest trees has raised questions of the possible risks involved in the use of transgenic plants (Devos et al 2008, Strauss et al 2009). Hoenicka and Fladung (2006) defined the biosafety term as 'the prevention of largescale loss of biological diversity and integrity due to human activities and reviewed the results of groups working in biosafety research and risk avoidance with forest trees.…”