Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

Abstract

End of April 2021, the European Commission published its study on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The study involved a consultation of Member States and stakeholders. This study reveals a split on whether current legislation should be maintained or adapted to take account of scientific progress and the risk level of NGT products. This split was predictable. New technological developments challenge both ethical viewpoints and regulatory institutions; and contribute to the growing divide between science and society that value ‘technological innovations’ differently. Such controversies are often characterized as ‘unstructured’ because of nearly unbridgeable positions on entangled scientific and value-laden issues. Initiatives for stakeholder involvement, such as consultation or participation, often focus on reaching a ‘shared vision’ without exploring the diverse societal concerns and values behind these positions. To resolve the EU stalemate in NGT regulation, we advocate to bring back politics in the EU decision-making process instead of hiding it under the veil of science, the need for regulatory change and public support. A more productive and justified use of genuine stakeholder participation is possible, if participants and deliberation design meet the criteria of what we call participation ethics. Drawing from our applied experience exploring the ethics of genetic modification, we believe that this approach can lead to more robust political decision-making and restore societal confidence in the governance of contested issues such as NGTs.

New genomic techniques, old divides: stakeholder attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation in the EU and UK

“…were already drawn by 2018 in advance of the ECJs decision on directed mutagenesis and the divisions were, as Poort et al (2022) suggest, predictable. These two groups could be described as separate epistemic communities (see Haas et al, 1992) within Europe that frame problemsand solutions to those problems -in different terms, informed by different value systems and both seeking to influence policy according to what Lang and Barling (2012) view as competing 'paradigms' (see also Mampuys, 2022;Wynne, 2002).…”

“…The consultations were presented as an opportunity for different views to be shared and have revealed ongoing divided opinion on more lenient regulation for gene-edit crops and animals (Poort et al, 2022). However, the extent to which these initiatives permitted viewpoints to be shared and feed into technology governance have been criticised; some organisations cast the language of the latest consultation as biased and chose not to participate (European Coordination Via Campesina, 2022); the UK public consultation was seen by some groups as ignoring the message provided by the exercise and criticised the weighting given to different groups' opinions (A Bigger Conversation, 2021).…”

New genomic techniques, old divides: Stakeholder attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation in the EU and UK

“…The two broad camps of opinion that formed around the use of first-generation, transgenic techniques have remained in place with respect to NGTs see [37]. These "lines" were already drawn by 2018 in advance of the ECJs decision on directed mutagenesis and the divisions were, as Poort et al [7] suggest, predictable. These two groups could be described as separate epistemic communities see [38] within Europe that frame problems-and solutions to those problems-in different terms, informed by different value systems and both seeking to influence policy according to what Lang and Barling [39] view as competing 'paradigms' see also [40,41].…”

“…Due to the devolved nature of food and farming in the UK, the Bill only applies to England. The consultations were presented as an opportunity for different views to be shared and have revealed ongoing divided opinion on more lenient regulation for gene-edit crops and animals [ 7 ]. However, the extent to which these initiatives permitted viewpoints to be shared and feed into technology governance have been criticised; some organisations cast the language of the latest consultation as biased and chose not to participate [ 8 ]; the UK public consultation was seen by some groups as ignoring the message provided by the exercise and criticised the weighting given to different groups’ opinions [ 9 ].…”

Problem structuring, wrong-problem problems and metagovernance as the strategic management of intractable positions: The case of the EU GM Crop Regulatory Framework controversy

“…But of course, GMO policy remained problematic, given post-2001 advances in which ‘genetic modification’ disappears as a separate, recognizable technology (e.g. gene-editing with CRISPR-Cas; Poort et al, 2022). To scientists and many agri-food stakeholders, this renders obsolete the EU definition of GMOs.…”