Gene editing of livestock

Abstract

Gene editing technologies allow users to make in vivo (live) changes to an organism’s DNA. Advances in the field of gene editing have made it arguably more precise, efficient, flexible, and cheaper compared to previous technologies. This has generated an upsurge of interest in gene editing and its governance, including in livestock applications. Although gene editing in livestock promises benefits, it also raises technical, ethical, and societal questions alongside the prospect of (radical) transformation. Since the technology is still to be developed into marketable products, it is the designs, visions, or what we term “sociotechnical imaginaries” that shape gene editing technologies and that represent an important site for sociological inquiry. In this article, based on an analysis of interviews with breeding company representatives and agricultural scientists in the Netherlands, we analyze the assumptions, values, and commitments that underpin their imaginaries. These imaginaries matter, since their negotiation will help structure how the technology develops and how it will subsequently transform livestock and human–animal relations. In our analysis, we analyze the discursive practices from the interview data distilling three sociotechnical imaginaries that shape and underpin how respondents discuss gene editing in livestock. Elaborating the sociotechnical imaginary concept to make it more amenable to the emerging dynamics of gene editing in livestock, we show how imaginaries need to be studied “in place” and in terms of “material practices.” Even though each of the imaginaries frame livestock gene editing as desirable and beneficial, they nevertheless have differential effects in how they structure industry, researcher, government, and consumer/citizen relations. We conclude by discussing how and why sociotechnical imaginaries on livestock gene editing matter and their implications for governance and research.

A Doomed Technology? On Gene Editing in Bavarian Livestock Agriculture, Policy Field Conflicts and Responsible Research and Innovation

“…These results correspond to similar findings byMiddelveld and Macnaghten (2021) based on focus group discussions with Dutch publics.Frontiers in Political Science | www.frontiersin.org…”

“…While numerous questions still remain open, markedly the question of off-target effects (c.f. Middelveld and Macnaghten, 2021), CRISPR-Cas9 presents, for the first time, a technology that might allow scientists and breeders to engage in the large-scale genetic modification of agricultural livestock animals.…”

Editorial: Technological strategies to improve animal health and production

“…Genome editing technologies allow programmable DNA nucleases-based accurate genome alterations ( 3 ). Despite its many benefits, genetic improvement in livestock creates technological, ethical, and societal issues ( 4 – 7 ); hence this technology has not yet completely replaced the rest of the technological options that have been used for the purpose of improving animal health and production.…”

The Making of Responsible Innovation and Technology: An Overview and Framework

“…In addition, innovators and adopters should be especially prudent in considering potential ethical problems in highly sensitive settings to either avoid or fuel controversy. For example, in Europe, there is a highly valued animal health and welfare context, so it has a long historical arc of concerns about animal food safety [58].…”