Responsible innovation in biotechnology: Stakeholder attitudes and implications for research policy

Abstract

This article explores attitudes of stakeholders involved in biotechnology towards the Responsible Innovation (RI) framework. As a framework for governance, RI has received increasing scholarly attention but has yet to be successfully integrated into U.S. research and innovation policy. Using a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the attitudes of different biotechnology stakeholders, particularly those working in areas related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and the environment, towards the principles and practices of RI. Homogenous focus groups (organized by stakeholder affiliation) and pre-and post-focus group surveys were used to measure attitudes towards RI. We designed the survey questions according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and examined the agreement of stakeholders with policy core beliefs (general principles of RI) and secondary beliefs (implementation practices of RI). Although all stakeholder groups had neutral to positive attitudes towards RI general principles, we found significant differences in their reactions to the scholarly definitions of RI and in their attitudes towards practices to implement RI. In comparison to government and advocacy groups, stakeholders promoting biotechnology innovations-industry, trade organizations, and academics-had more negative reactions to social science definitions of RI and to RI practices that relinquish control to people outside of technology development pipelines. Qualitative analysis of focus-groups revealed barriers for implementing RI practices. For example, innovators were cynical about including external voices in innovation pathways due to inflexible funding programs and were concerned about potential delays to innovation given the highly competitive environments for financing and patents. In order to help address these tensions, we call for the co-design of RI practices between biotechnology innovators and other stakeholders. The opening-up of biotechnology innovation to RI practices of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity will likely be important for future, public legitimacy of emerging genetic engineering applications such as gene editing and gene drives.

Cultural Beliefs and Stakeholder Affiliation Influence Attitudes Towards Responsible Research and Innovation Among United States Stakeholders Involved in Biotechnology and Gene Editing

“…The study found that although innovators generally agreed on the desirability of several principles of RRI, they were concerned about the feasibility of meaningful implementation of them. The findings in these last two studies are consistent with our previous study with United States biotechnology stakeholders (Roberts et al, 2020), in which we found greater agreement on RRI principles (i.e., anticipation, responsivity, reflexivity, and inclusion) among diverse stakeholder groups than on specific RRI practices for implementing these principles.…”

“…In India, they heard from crop scientists who argued that India "could not afford the risk of falling behind in the development of biotechnology" and that anti-GM groups were "ignorant" (Carro-Ripalda and Macnaghten 2015, p 25). These results are similar to the barriers identified in our previous work with focus groups of United States biotechnology stakeholders (Roberts et al, 2020). Here we found 1) "cynicism" among innovators with regard to the public's ability to engage in informed conversation and 2) the predominance of "academic capitalism" in United States culture and institutions, through which any process such as RRI that might slow innovation down would reduce competitiveness and be seen as undesirable.…”

“…We found that biotech developers and their proponents (i.e., biotech or commoditycrop trade organizations) were wary of giving voice or choice to groups outside innovation pipelines, which contradicts RRI principles of inclusion and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al, 2013). Biotech developers expressed fears that these facets of RRI would slow their work down in the face of pressures to move quickly to compete for funding, capital, and national or international professional advantages (Roberts et al, 2020).…”

“…In previous work (Roberts et al, 2020), we developed quantitative survey questions to measure attitudes towards the four RRI principles from Stilgoe et al (2013) and towards ways to put these principles into action. We found that United States stakeholders promoting or developing biotechnology innovations--industry, trade organizations, and academics--had more negative reactions to RRI principles of inclusion and responsiveness than the RRI principles of reflexivity and anticipation in comparison to government and advocacy groups (i.e., consumer or environmental non-profits).…”

Differentiated impacts of human interventions on nature

“…In turn, that alignment creates a social ratchet that resists movement "backward" to more inclusive decision making across all possible visions by multiple publics. Expectations and actions that "advance" a technology favored by powerful institutions drag social license behind it (Montenegro de Wit, 2020; Roberts et al, 2020). Society at large only influences the rate at which the ratchet turns.…”