Imagined futures for livestock gene editing: Public engagement in the Netherlands

Abstract

Gene editing is an emerging technology with diverse applications in the making, including in livestock. While the technology is commonly represented as offering unbounded possibilities and societal benefit, it remains unclear how to characterise public views and the process through which responses are developed. Rather than simply being about individual attitudes, beliefs or preferences, we explicate an interpretative approach that seeks to understand how people make sense of the technology in the form of shared cultural idioms and stories. Based on five anticipatory focus group discussions with Dutch publics, we found the prevalence of five narratives shaping public talk, namely, technological fix, the market rules, in pursuit of perfection, finding the golden mean and governance through care. We explore the implications of these findings for governance and reflect on the virtues of sophrosyne and phronesis as offering ways to reconfigure the practice and politics of gene editing.

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

“…Taking the environment into consideration is part of the innovation to treat resources with respect and in the most responsible way throughout the entire lifecycle of innovation, which ensures broad sustainability outcomes while avoiding large and irreversible consequences for the earth. [52,60,76] As mentioned in multitudinous articles, the practices of innovation and technology could have various unforeseen consequences for society, the environment, and the economy due to the inevitable entry of provided products and services into the complex scenarios of human use [58,63,73]. Given this, the context and uses of innovation should be clearly investigated as early as possible, aiming to provide sufficient knowledge and information for participators to comprehensively anticipate and consider the future scenarios of innovation and technology practices, including the actual and potential near-term and longer-term risks and benefits [44,63,74].…”

“…Given this, the context and uses of innovation should be clearly investigated as early as possible, aiming to provide sufficient knowledge and information for participators to comprehensively anticipate and consider the future scenarios of innovation and technology practices, including the actual and potential near-term and longer-term risks and benefits [44,63,74]. Innovation and technology need to keep care and moderation in decision-making practices throughout their entire lifecycles to reduce unforeseen and undesirable consequences to the extent feasible, such as significant or irreversible consequences for life on Earth [73,74]. Therefore, they require stakeholders, including innovators, actors, and researchers, to keep humility, avoid easy judgment, and learn to hesitate during the innovation and practice processes [58,77].…”

Gene Editing in Agriculture: Social Concerns, Public Engagement, and Governance

“…Acknowledging that publics should question and contest the underlying assumptions and problem framings surrounding the use of gene editing in agriculture represents the most expansive approach to public engagement in the special issue. These articles contribute to recent STS literature that interrogates how publics are defined, constructed, by whom, and for what purpose in the context of engagement on emerging technologies (Chilvers and Pallett 2018;Middelveld et al 2023;Schwarz-Plaschg 2018;Macnaghten 2021;Macnaghten et al, 2019;Chilvers and Kearnes 2020;Lindberg et al 2023). Mampuys's call for "re-politicization" or a reengagement with politics around biotechnology use in agriculture is a well-situated proposal to address such persistent wicked policy problems and to stimulate public engagement and more transparent governance.…”

“…This overwhelmingly positive narrative overshadowed attention to social, environmental, and human health concerns expressed by publics. Gene editing in agriculture and food also poses new regulatory and governance challenges that have led to calls for invigorated engagement of diverse publics in governance by both academics and policy makers (Macnaghten and Habets 2020; Selfa, Lindberg, and Bain 2021; Middelveld et al 2023; Cummings and Peters 2022; Helliwell, Harley, and Pearce 2019; Jasanoff and Hurlburt 2018; Gordon et al 2021; Montenegro de Wit, 2020a, 2020b; Gould et al 2022). To explore key social concerns related to gene editing in agriculture and food, the guest editors of this special issue invited leading international social scientists to contribute their work to an interdisciplinary collection of articles.…”