<scp>CRISPR</scp>
            ‐based gene drive in agriculture will face technical and governance challenges

Gutzmann, Nicole; Elsensohn, Johanna E.; Barnes, Jessica Cavin; Baltzegar, Jennifer; Jones, Michael; Sudweeks, Jayce

doi:10.15252/embr.201744661

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gutzmann et al argue that GD will face greater technical and governance challenges than suggested by our article. We agree with their points, although we did not develop these limitations in our paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

Using CRISPR ‐based gene drive for agriculture pest control

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 62%

Using CRISPR ‐based gene drive for agriculture pest control

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially in the agricultural domain, governance debates follow patterns of polarization that are remarkably stable in the development from transgenic GMOs to CRISPR-edited crops and foods (Gutzmann et al, 2017;Macnaghten and Habets, 2020;Montenegro de Wit, 2020). For over 2 decades, a wide coalition of scientists, journalists, and industry actors has supported transgenic GMOs by highlighting increased technological control against biosafety concerns and by stressing the transformative potential of GMOs in addressing global challenges such as food security, malnutrition, and poverty in the Global South.…”

Section: Rethinking the Governance Of Crisprmentioning

confidence: 99%

The complexity of the gene and the precision of CRISPR

Shah

Ludwig

Macnaghten

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid development of CRISPR-based gene editing has been accompanied by a polarized governance debate about the status of CRISPR-edited crops as genetically modified organisms. This article argues that the polarization around the governance of gene editing partly reflects a failure of public engagement with the current state of research in genomics and postgenomics. CRISPR-based gene-editing technology has become embedded in a narrow narrative about the ease and precision of the technique that presents the gene as a stable object under technological control. By tracing the considerably destabilized scientific understanding of the gene in genomics and postgenomics, this article highlights that this publicly mediated ontology strategically avoids positioning the “ease of CRISPR-based editing” in the wider context of the “complexity of the gene.” While this strategic narrowness of CRISPR narratives aims to create public support for gene-editing technologies, we argue that it stands in the way of socially desirable anticipatory governance and open public dialogue about societal promises and the unintended consequences of gene editing. In addressing the polarization surrounding CRISPR-based editing technology, the article emphasizes the need for engagement with the complex state of postgenomic science that avoids strategic simplifications of the scientific literature in promoting or opposing the commercial use of the gene-editing technology.

show abstract

“…The editing can be applied in engineering disease resistant transgenic plants but could also be used to engineer Asian citrus psyllids incapable of transmitting the bacterium responsible for HLB (Gutzmann et al, 2017). The editing can be applied in engineering disease resistant transgenic plants but could also be used to engineer Asian citrus psyllids incapable of transmitting the bacterium responsible for HLB (Gutzmann et al, 2017).…”

Section: A32 Control Of the Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%