Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation?

Myskja, Bjørn K.; Myhr, Anne Ingeborg

doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00222-4

Cited by 43 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board has proposed such an approach to regulation, which differentiates between applications based not only on risk but also potential social benefit. While its operationalization has been critiqued as continuing to prioritize technological concerns over social, cultural or ethical issues [ 87 ], this example may still perhaps serve as a model for other jurisdictions looking to adapt such an approach [ 88 , 89 ].…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

Nawaz

Satterfield

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dexterity and affordability of gene-editing technologies promise wide-ranging applications in agriculture. Aiming to take advantage of this, proponents emphasize benefits such as the climate-mitigating promises of gene editing. Critics, on the other hand, argue that gene editing will perpetuate industrialized forms of agriculture and its concomitant environmental and social problems. Across a representative sample of US and Canadian residents (n = 1478), we investigate public views and perceptions of agricultural gene editing. We advance existing survey-based studies, which tend to focus on whether knowledge, familiarity, trust, or perceptions of naturalness predict views on gene editing. Instead, we examine whether broader societal concerns about industrialized food systems—a key claim about genetic engineering launched by critics—predicts comfort with gene editing. We also explore the predictive power of views of climate change as an urgent problem, following proponent arguments. Survey results explore gene editing views in reference to specific cases (e.g., drought-tolerant wheat) and specific alternatives (e.g., versus pesticide use). We find that people critical of industrialized food systems were most likely to express overall absolute opposition to the technology, whereas those concerned with the imminence of climate change were more likely to support climate-relevant gene editing. Our findings suggest the need for further research into the conditions upon which public groups find gene editing compelling or not—namely, if applications enhance or counter industrial food systems, or offer particular climate adaptive benefits. Furthermore, we argue that attention to broader societal priorities in surveys of perceptions may help address calls for responsible research and innovation as concerns gene editing.

show abstract

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

Nawaz

Satterfield

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incorporation of socio-economic considerations in regulatory frameworks is contentious and there are few examples of frameworks that have specified what counts as a socio-economic consideration or successfully integrated them into risk decision-making [ 32 ]. However, attentiveness to these considerations will be important for the ethical justifiability and social acceptability of risk decisions concerning the testing and deployment of gene drive mosquitoes [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

Hartley

Smith

Kokotovich

et al. 2021

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The African Union’s High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies identified gene drive mosquitoes as a priority technology for malaria elimination. The first field trials are expected in 5–10 years in Uganda, Mali or Burkina Faso. In preparation, regional and international actors are developing risk governance guidelines which will delineate the framework for identifying and evaluating risks. Scientists and bioethicists have called for African stakeholder involvement in these developments, arguing the knowledge and perspectives of those people living in malaria-afflicted countries is currently missing. However, few African stakeholders have been involved to date, leaving a knowledge gap about the local social-cultural as well as ecological context in which gene drive mosquitoes will be tested and deployed. This study investigates and analyses Ugandan stakeholders’ hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control and explores the new directions needed for risk governance. Methods This qualitative study draws on 19 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Ugandan stakeholders in 2019. It explores their hopes for the technology and the risks they believed pertinent. Coding began at a workshop and continued through thematic analysis. Results Participants’ hopes and concerns for gene drive mosquitoes to address malaria fell into three themes: (1) ability of gene drive mosquitoes to prevent malaria infection; (2) impacts of gene drive testing and deployment; and, (3) governance. Stakeholder hopes fell almost exclusively into the first theme while concerns were spread across all three. The study demonstrates that local stakeholders are able and willing to contribute relevant and important knowledge to the development of risk frameworks. Conclusions International processes can provide high-level guidelines, but risk decision-making must be grounded in the local context if it is to be robust, meaningful and legitimate. Decisions about whether or not to release gene drive mosquitoes as part of a malaria control programme will need to consider the assessment of both the risks and the benefits of gene drive mosquitoes within a particular social, political, ecological, and technological context. Just as with risks, benefits—and importantly, the conditions that are necessary to realize them—must be identified and debated in Uganda and its neighbouring countries.

show abstract

“…These become questions about what human changing nature might lead to, and whether this is something that society is willing to accept. Hence, the '' […] blurry line between risk and sustainability demonstrates the significance of including non-safety issues in order to make a decision that is socially acceptable'' (Myskja and Myhr 2020).…”

Section: Issue Of Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquaculture is becoming the primary source of seafood for human diets, and farmed fish aquaculture is one of its fastest growing sectors. The industry currently faces several challenges including infectious and parasitic diseases, reduced viability, fertility reduction, slow growth, escapee fish and environmental pollution. The commercialization of the growth-enhanced AquAdvantage salmon and the CRISPR/Cas9-developed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) proffers genetic engineering and genome editing tools, e.g. CRISPR/Cas, as potential solutions to these challenges. Future traits being developed in different fish species include disease resistance, sterility, and enhanced growth. Despite these notable advances, off-target effect and non-clarification of trait-related genes among other technical challenges hinder full realization of CRISPR/Cas potentials in fish breeding. In addition, current regulatory and risk assessment frameworks are not fit-for purpose regarding the challenges of CRISPR/Cas notwithstanding that public and regulatory acceptance are key to commercialization of products of the new technology. In this study, we discuss how CRISPR/Cas can be used to overcome some of these limitations focusing on diseases and environmental release in farmed fish aquaculture. We further present technical limitations, regulatory and risk assessment challenges of the use of CRISPR/Cas, and proffer research strategies that will provide much-needed data for regulatory decisions, risk assessments, increased public awareness and sustainable applications of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture with emphasis on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) breeding.

show abstract

Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation?

Cited by 43 publications

References 48 publications

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About