Abstracts, Papers &

Resources:
Citizen Stakeholders

We’ve scanned the web to bring together a library of interesting, thought-provoking articles, blogs, reports and academic papers that explore the issue of genetic engineering in food and farming from broader and deeper perspectives. Browse for inspiration or search by theme.

Currently showing only Citizen Stakeholders Resources
Page 1 of 4

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & Regulation

Governing by imaginaries? Regulatory legitimization of genome-edited foods in Japan

Tomiko Yamaguchi

Publication date: 23/12/2025

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

The article examines how Japanese regulators construct legitimacy around genome-edited foods by shaping dominant sociotechnical imaginaries through strategies like selective incorporation, technocratic reinterpretation, and deferral, which tend to depoliticize societal concerns. While governance is presented as scientifically sound and procedurally transparent, public responses express alternative views based on precaution, social inclusion, and consumer rights, revealing ongoing tensions between innovation goals and demands for democratic legitimacy, and showing that this apparent stability is still fragile and contested.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen Stakeholders

Citizens as consumers: styles of reasoning about agricultural biotechnologies and publics

Klara Fischer, Lauren Crossland-Marr, Emil Planting Mollaoglu, Adrian Ely, Dominic Glover, Matthew Schnurr & Glenn Davis Stone

Publication date: 14/03/2025

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

In research and policy there is a dominant style of reasoning about the contribution agricultural biotechnologies can make to resolving major global challenges. In this reasoning, consumer scepticism is a major hindrance to deploying biotechnology and there is a significant focus on understanding consumer opinion in order to manipulate it. Analysing the historical role given to publics in public opinion research, and within technology research and policy, demonstrates that the framing of publics is largley shaped by economics. A review of academic publications on agricultural biotechnology and publics between 1995 and 2021 reveals some of the core tenets of this style of reasoning. The dominant framing of publics as individual consumers confines attention to concerns with end products on supermarket shelves. Theories and methods are focused on understanding individual perceptions, and fixed response questions reify the expert/public divide. This obscures broader public concerns with agricultural biotechnologies, such as issues of social justice or governance of uncertainty. A broader framing of different publics and their opinions of technology development and deployment would improve understanding of the issues that concern people as citizens, and enable more meaningful public engagement with agricultural biotechnologies.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersPlant & Animal Breeding

Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?

Christine Kuo, Katherine E. Koralesky and Daniel M. Weary

Publication date: 07/02/2024

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Organizations involved with gene editing may engage with the public to share information and address concerns about the technology. It is unclear, however, if the information shared aligns with what people want to know. We aimed to understand what members of the public want to know about gene editing in animals by soliciting their questions through an open-ended survey question and comparing them with questions posed in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) webpages developed by gene editing stakeholder organizations. Participants (338 USA residents) asked the most questions about gene editing in general and animal welfare. In contrast, FAQ webpages focused on regulations. The questions survey participants asked demonstrate a range of knowledge and interests. The discrepancy between survey participant questions and the information provided in the FAQ webpages suggests that gene editing stakeholders might engage in more meaningful public engagement by soliciting actual questions from the public and opening up opportunities for real dialogue.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersPlant & Animal BreedingSustainability

Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods

Wei Wei, Khara Grieger, Christopher L. Cummings, Nick Loschin, Jennifer Kuzma

Publication date: 22/07/2023

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

This Opinion article argues that to achieve a more sustainable agrifood production that relies on genetic engineering, governance systems related to new agrifood biotechnologies should incorporate a broader array of environmental, health, ethical, and societal factors to ensure their sustainability in the long-term. To facilitate this process, we propose a set of parameters to help evaluate the sustainability of agrifoods that rely on genetic engineering. We then discuss major challenges and opportunities for formalizing sustainability parameters in US governance policy and decision-making systems. Overall, this work contributes to further developing a more comprehensive assessment framework that aims to minimize potential risks and maximize potential benefits of agrifood biotechnology while also fostering sustainability.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & RegulationSustainability

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

Sigfrid Kjeldaas, Tim Dassler, Trine Antonsen, Odd-Gunnar Wikmark & Anne I. Myhr

Publication date: 25/10/2022

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

To avoid past mistakes of under- or miscommunication about possible impacts, we need open, transparent, and inclusive societal debate on the nature of the science of gene (editing) technologies, on how to use them, and whether they contribute to sustainable solutions to societal and environmental challenges. To be trustworthy, GMO regulation must demonstrate the authorities’ ability to manage the scientific, socio-economic, environmental, and ethical complexities and uncertainties associated with NGTs. Regulators and authorities should give equal attention to the reflexive and the emotional aspects of trust and make room for honest public and stakeholder inclusion processes.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersConservationLegislation & RegulationSustainability

The principles driving gene drives for conservation

Sarah Hartley, Riley Taitingfong, Pedro Fidelman

Publication date: 01/09/2022

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Scientists are exploring potential gene drive applications for managing invasive species and building resilience in keystone species threatened by climate change. The possibility to use gene drive for these conservation purposes has triggered significant interest in how to govern its development and eventual applications. We conducted qualitative documentary analysis to examine the range and substance of principles emerging in the governance of conservation gene drive. Such analysis aimed to better understand the aspirations guiding these applications and how scientists and other experts imagine their responsibility in this field. We found a collection of recommendations and prescriptions that could be organised into a set of seven emerging principles intended to shape the governance of gene drive in conservation: broad and empowered engagement; public acceptance; decision-making informed by broad ranging considerations, state and international collaboration; ethical frameworks; diverse expertise; and responsible self-regulation by developers. We lay bare these emergent principles, analyzing the way in which they are valued, prioritized, and their strengths and weaknesses.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & RegulationPlant & Animal BreedingSustainability

Imagined futures for livestock gene editing: Public engagement in the Netherlands

Senna Middelveld, Phil Macnaghten, Franck Meijboom

Publication date: 01/08/2022

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

While gene editing is commonly represented as offering unbounded possibilities and societal benefit, it remains unclear how to characterise public views and the process through which responses are developed. Rather than simply being about individual attitudes, beliefs or preferences, we explicate an interpretative approach that seeks to understand how people make sense of the technology in the form of shared cultural idioms and stories. Based on five anticipatory focus group discussions with Dutch publics, we found the prevalence of five narratives shaping public talk, namely, technological fix, the market rules, in pursuit of perfection, finding the golden mean and governance through care. We explore the implications of these findings for governance and reflect on the virtues of sophrosyne and phronesis as offering ways to reconfigure the practice and politics of gene editing.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersConservationScience & Technology

Gene Drives in the UK, US, and Australian Press (2015–2019): How a New Focus on Responsibility Is Shaping Science Communication

Aleksandra Stelmach, Brigitte Nerlich, Sarah Hartley

Publication date: 25/01/2022

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Gene drive is a controversial biotechnology for pest control. Despite a commitment from gene drive researchers to responsibility and the key role of the media in debates about science and technology, little research has been conducted on media reporting of gene drive. We employ metaphor and discourse analysis to explore how responsibility is reflected in the coverage of this technology in the U.S., U.K., and Australian press. The findings reveal a rhetorical strategy of trust-building by evoking the moral attributes of gene drive researchers. We discuss the implications of these findings for the communication of new technologies.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & RegulationScience & TechnologySustainability

The complexity of the gene and the precision of CRISPR: What is the gene that is being edited?

Esha Shah, David Ludwig, Phil Macnaghten

Publication date: 26/10/2021

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

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. This narrative fails to position the “ease of CRISPR-based editing” into 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.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & RegulationPlant & Animal BreedingSustainability

How to Do What Is Right, Not What Is Easy: Requirements for Assessment of Genome-Edited and Genetically Modified Organisms under Ethical Guidelines

T. Antonsen, T. Dassler

Publication date: 24/06/2021

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

An ethical assessment is a complex, dynamic and comprehensive process that requires both ethical expertise and practical knowledge. An ethical assessment of a genetically modified organism (GMO, including genome edited organisms) must follow accepted and transparent methods and be based in relevant considerations. In addition, the Ethical guidelines must include a broad and adequate range of values, so that no groups, stakeholders, agents or areas are left out.

We recommend that ethical assessments of GMOs (including genome-edited organisms) are performed by professionals with competence and practical knowledge of ethical judgements, and that users, non-users, stakeholders and interest groups are actively involved. In addition, we recommend that the Ethical guidelines include a wide range of ethical values.

Resource type: article: Web Page