The Geographies and Politics of Gene Editing: Framing Debates Across Seven Countries

Abstract

This article traces the contours and dynamics of the debates about the politics of gene editing. It does so by providing both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the publications on the topic. We present a scientometric analysis of scientific publications; we discuss the geographies of gene editing by analysing the scales and spatial terms mobilised; and we undertake a lexicometric analysis of how debates are framed and the public is positioned. Our scientometric analysis of scientific articles shows that the governance and regulation of gene editing is discussed across an increasing range of disciplines and countries over the years. Along with this internationalisation and “transdisciplinarisation,” we see a qualitative shift in the “grounding” of the debate: while initially, authors tend to reflect about gene editing, in more recent years, there are increasing calls to act upon current knowledge. Across the countries we studied (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Australia, Japan, and Canada) our lexicometric analysis shows only a few differences in terms of how gene editing is discussed. While the general framing of the debate is widely shared, the differences that we observe concern for instance the applications or benefits of gene editing and the ways in which the importance of involving the public is worded. We hold that bringing together multiple methods allows a rich and multifaceted discussion of the politics of gene editing, and that this opens up fertile dialogues between geography, sociology and political science.

Key and emerging themes in gene editing: A lexicometric analysis of publications in the biological sciences (1990–2022)

“…At the same time, we also see that policy, geography, and the regulatory implications become more prominent from 2015 onwards. In a nutshell, while until 2014, the main focus is put on the scientific aspects of genetic engineering and gene editing, the links between genetics and society become increasingly visible from 2015 onwards (see also Meyer & Vergnaud, 2021). Put differently, we see evidence of the shifting boundaries of science.…”

“…In our previous study (Meyer & Vergnaud, 2021), we observed that many authors hold that regulation and governance need to take place on an international level and we distinguished between three families of geographical terms: the international level, Europe, and the national level. Through our present study, we can see how these geographies shift over time.…”

“…In this research paper, we decided to take a hitherto unexamined angle, by focusing on scientific articles published in journals in the biological sciences. Elsewhere, we have presented a scientometric and lexicometric analysis of how, across disciplines , debates about the politics of gene editing are framed (Meyer & Vergnaud, 2021). We showed that while the general framing of the debate is widely shared, there are notable differences regarding the applications/benefits of gene editing and the role of the public.…”

“…At the same time, we also see that policy, geography, and the regulatory implications become more prominent from 2015 onwards. In a nutshell, while until 2014, the main focus is put on the scientific aspects of genetic engineering and gene editing, the links between genetics and society become increasingly visible from 2015 onwards (see alsoMeyer & Vergnaud, 2021).Put differently, we see evidence of the shifting boundaries of science.Several authors have already pointed to the multiple types of boundary-work visible in debates about gene editing, such as those between healing and enhancing, germline and somatic cells, legal and illegal, ethical and unethical, responsible and irresponsible, legitimate and deviant, and continuity and novelty (seeAddison, 2017;Coyle, 2023;Meyer, 2022). Others have shown that the terms used to talk about gene editing can vary and lead to different-and sometimes contesting-interpretations, especially in debates involving nongovernmental organizations (seeHelliwell et al, 2019) and in the press (seeNikitina, 2020).…”

Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan

“…This is reflected, for instance, by the EU’s promotion of the RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) as a guiding principle and policy of the region. The political connotation of the term acceptance has also been used to indicate different styles in the regulation of GM/GE food (e.g., Meyer, 2017 ; Meyer, 2020 ; Meyer and Vergnaud 2021 ). While this is certainly true for the general use of this term, the disentanglement of the various dimensions of acceptance suggested by Wüstenhagen et al (2007) precludes such interpretation and increases the descriptive-analytic value of the term.…”