The Deadlock in European Decision-Making on GMOs as a Wicked Problem by Design: A Need for Repoliticization

Abstract

Altering the DNA of living organisms, also genetic modification, genetic engineering, or genetic manipulation, is playing an increasing and significant role in our lives, our food, and our environment. At the same time, the societal acceptance of this technology varies widely, and scientific uncertainties play a recurring role in the safety assessment of applications. In Europe, decision-making about genetically modified (GM) crops has become a laborious process in which scientific uncertainty and societal controversy are used as reasons to delay or halt GM crop authorizations as well as decisions about the legal status of new techniques such as gene editing. This article discusses the contributions and limitations of technocratic, participatory, and regulatory strategies that have been used to mitigate the situation. I will argue why scientific knowledge, input from participatory activities, and regulatory measures alone or all together are insufficient to resolve the deadlock in decision-making about biotechnology. I highlight the essential role of politics in this process because without political prioritization, gene editing in Europe will end up in the same deadlock.

With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies

“…In the case of gene technology, citizens not only want to know that GMOs are judged to be safe, but they also demand that scientific experts and competent authorities can provide clear and transparent reasoning for their judgement. 2 Issues of regulatory approval of NGTs are, however, complex and 'wicked problems' (Mampuys 2021;Rittel and Webber 1973) fraught with lack of knowledge, uncertainties, and feedback mechanisms across a range of scales from the molecular to the ecological and socio-economic. No individual actor can come to know these problems in all their aspects.…”

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

“…Mampuys ( 2021 , p. 36) recently illustrated how extensive multi-year stakeholder consultations on GMO safety failed to result in a broadly accepted outcome of the results. She argues that if the underlying debate about normative issues, e.g., safety perceptions, naturalness, and food production processes, is ignored and hidden under the veil of ‘objective science’, all that remains is a never-ending discussion about scientific uncertainty.…”

“…The EC consultation round on NGTs can be seen as yet another case where stakeholder involvement is seemingly overrated, dealing with complex and controversial technological issues, focusing on identifying a ‘shared vision’ without a robust exploration of the diverse societal concerns and conflicting values at stake in a political context. In the study by Mampuys ( 2021 ) it is argued that technocratic, regulatory, and even participatory strategies in the context of the GM crop debate are insufficient if political actors, deliberately or not, do not take up their own role. Politicians have the responsibility to guide political processes and take substantiated and transparent decisions—especially in situations of combined scientific uncertainty and societal disagreement.…”

“…Also, other authors argued for deliberation that includes other (lay) experts, besides techno-scientists, for answering the question ‘what we can learn about how socio-technological innovations can contribute to sustainable development’. Including those perspectives will broaden deliberation and will avoid dichotomous key political questions concerning controversial techno-scientific experiments (Mampuys 2021 ; Burall 2018 ; Inghelbrecht et al 2017 ; Hanssen & Gremmen 2013 ).…”

“…This strong focus on experiences with the use of NGTS, risks that these underlying viewpoints, worries, unexpected consequences and other sorts of controversies remain hidden. After decades of repetitive debates, it should be clear that ‘facts’ will not resolve the disagreement on NGTs, nor will a consensus emerge from this kind of pre-framed stakeholder activities (Mampuys 2021 ; De Krom et al 2014 ; Hanssen 2009 ).The rise of controversies around New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs) and now NGTs demonstrates again that new scientific and technological developments do not only challenge our ethical standards and regulatory institutions, but may also contribute to the growing divide between science and society. Lack of public trust in science and emerging technology, sometimes even the denial of scientific insights, is raging in recent years through societies as other controversies illustrate, like the recent COVID-19 vaccine debate (Loomba et al 2021 ).…”