IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v33y2024i5p476-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A social and ethical game-changer? An empirical ethics study of CRISPR in the salmon farming industry

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Winther

    (8018Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway)

  • Torill Blix

    (The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), Norway
    NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Climate and Environment, Bergen, Norway)

  • Lotte Holm

    (University of Copenhagen, Section for Consumption, Bioethics and Governance, Denmark)

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr

    (NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Climate and Environment, Norway)

  • Bjørn Myskja

    (8018Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway)

Abstract

The genome editing technology CRISPR is described as a technological game-changer because of its flexibility and precision, and as an ethical game-changer due to its ability to engineer traits in living organisms without crossing species, avoiding a significant objection to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In salmon farming, applications of CRISPR in breeding hold the promise of handling environmental and fish welfare challenges yet require social acceptance. Adopting an empirical bioethics framework, this stakeholder interview study shows that respecting species borders is important, but not decisive, for acceptance among Norwegian stakeholders. The main objections are based on moral reflections about technology use and outcomes. These reflections combine principles and pragmatic deliberations of moral costs and benefits, suggesting that CRISPR applications with environmentally and ethically significant benefits can be socially acceptable. This indicates that the game-changing potential of CRISPR relies on the characteristics of the editing and the context in which the application takes place.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Winther & Torill Blix & Lotte Holm & Anne Ingeborg Myhr & Bjørn Myskja, 2024. "A social and ethical game-changer? An empirical ethics study of CRISPR in the salmon farming industry," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(5), pages 476-494, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:33:y:2024:i:5:p:476-494
    DOI: 10.1177/09632719231196543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09632719231196543
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09632719231196543?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Carmen Bain & Sonja Lindberg & Theresa Selfa, 2020. "Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    4. Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christine J. Winter, 2024. "Beyond domination and extraction," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(5), pages 469-475, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    3. Gesa Busch & Erin Ryan & Marina A. G. Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary, 2022. "Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 151-164, March.
    4. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    6. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    8. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    9. Ueland, Øydis & Langsrud, Solveig & Veflen, Nina, 2023. "Food risk communication to consumers: The scare of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(02), June.
    10. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    12. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    13. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Magdiel Pablo-Cano & Anastacio Espejel-García & Arturo Hernández-Montes & Landy Hernández-Rodríguez, 2024. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Sustainability, Origin and Production Process in Raicilla," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    17. Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.
    18. Neha Singhal, 2018. "A Study of Consumer Behaviour towards Genetically Modified Foods and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness," Vision, , vol. 22(3), pages 306-315, September.
    19. Xiaodong Yang & Lai Wei & Zhiyue Liu, 2022. "Promoting COVID-19 Vaccination Using the Health Belief Model: Does Information Acquisition from Divergent Sources Make a Difference?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Fei Wang & Shu Li & Xin-Wen Bai & Xiao-Peng Ren & Li-Lin Rao & Jin-Zhen Li & Huan Liu & Hong-Zhi Liu & Bin Wu & Rui Zheng, 2015. "Town Mouse or Country Mouse: Identifying a Town Dislocation Effect in Chinese Urbanization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:33:y:2024:i:5:p:476-494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.