IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v36y2019i4d10.1007_s10460-019-09956-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Helliwell

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Sarah Hartley

    (University of Exeter)

  • Warren Pearce

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines environmental, food and farming NGOs’ social and ethical concerns about genome editing, situating these concerns in comparison to alternative ethical assessments provided by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a key actor in this policy debate. In doing so, we show that participant NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics share considerable concerns about the social and ethical implications of genome editing. These concerns include choices over problem/solution framing and broader terminology, implications of regulatory and research choices on consumer choice and relations of power. However, GM-engaged NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics diverge on one important area: the NGOs seek to challenge the existing order and broaden the scope of debate to include deeply political questions regarding agricultural and technological choices. This distinction between the ethical positions means that NGOs provide valuable ethical insight and a useful lens to open up debate and discussion on the role of emerging technologies, such as genome editing, and the future of agriculture and food sovereignty.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:36:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-019-09956-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-019-09956-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-019-09956-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-019-09956-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Washer, Peter, 2006. "Representations of mad cow disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 457-466, January.
    3. Paul Thompson, 2015. "Agricultural ethics: then and now," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(1), pages 77-85, March.
    4. Will Tauxe, 2015. "Q&A: Cocktail maker," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7580), pages 14-14, December.
    5. Ewen Callaway, 2018. "CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7716), pages 16-16, August.
    6. Sally Eden & Andrew Donaldson & Gordon Walker, 2006. "Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary-Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1061-1076, June.
    7. Elizabeth Dowdeswell & Abdallah S Daar & Peter A Singer, 2005. "Getting governance into genomics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 497-498, December.
    8. Sarah Hartley & Kate M. Millar, 2014. "The Challenges of Consulting the Public on Science Policy: Examining the Development of European Risk Assessment Policy for Genetically Modified Animals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(6), pages 481-502, November.
    9. Anu Shukla-Jones & Steffi Friedrichs & David E. Winickoff, 2018. "Gene editing in an international context: Scientific, economic and social issues across sectors," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2018/04, OECD Publishing.
    10. Georgina Catacora-Vargas & Rosa Binimelis & Anne I. Myhr & Brian Wynne, 2018. "Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 489-513, June.
    11. Miller, David, 1999. "Risk, science and policy: definitional struggles, information management, the media and BSE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(9), pages 1239-1255, November.
    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. Jennifer Clapp & Sarah-Louise Ruder, 2020. "Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-EditedCrops, and the Politics of Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 49-69, August.
    2. Beate Friedrich, 2019. "Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. William Lacy, 2023. "Local food systems, citizen and public science, empowered communities, and democracy: hopes deserving to live," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Tim Dassler & Trine Antonsen & Odd-Gunnar Wikmark & Anne I. Myhr, 2023. "With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 533-545, June.
    5. Nihit Goyal & Michael Howlett & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1020-1034, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Trine Antonsen & Sarah Hartley & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2021. "Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway’s Gene Technology Act: An Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.

    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. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    3. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    4. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Yury Dranev & Maxim Kotsemir & Boris Syomin, 2018. "Diversity of research publications: relation to agricultural productivity and possible implications for STI policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1565-1587, September.
    6. Julia Jouan & Mireille De Graeuwe & Matthieu Carof & Rim Baccar & Nathalie Bareille & Suzanne Bastian & Delphine Brogna & Giovanni Burgio & Sébastien Couvreur & Michał Cupiał & Benjamin Dumont & Anne-, 2020. "Learning Interdisciplinarity and Systems Approaches in Agroecology: Experience with the Serious Game SEGAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    8. Paul B. Thompson, 2023. "Richard Haynes and the early years of Agriculture and Human Values," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 45-48, March.
    9. Christophe Albaladejo, 2020. "The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 213-240.
    10. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Smith, Richard D., 2006. "Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3113-3123, December.
    12. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    13. Cleland, Jonelle & Rogers, Abbie A., 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach," Research Reports 107578, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    14. Maria-Mihaela Antofie & Camelia Sand-Sava, 2022. "Genetically Modified Crops in Romania before and after the Accession of the European Union," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Stephanie Walton, 2024. "Transforming the food system in ‘unprotected space’: the case of diverse grain networks in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 989-1006, September.
    16. Elsa Berthet & Cécile Barnaud & Nathalie Girard & Julie Labatut, 2012. "Toward a reflexive framework to compare collective design methods for farming system innovation," Post-Print hal-00781251, HAL.
    17. Cisnetto, Valentina & Barlow, James, 2020. "The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    18. Desquilbet, Marion & Dorin, Bruno & Couvet, Denis, 2013. "Land sharing vs. land sparing for biodiversity: How agricultural markets make the difference," TSE Working Papers 13-435, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2015.
    19. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    20. Isabel Salavisa & Maria Fátima Ferreiro & Sofia Bizarro, 2021. "The Transition of the Agro-Food System: Lessons from Organic Farming in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, August.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:36:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-019-09956-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.