IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i2d10.1007_s10460-022-10367-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sigfrid Kjeldaas

    (UiT The Arctic University of Norway)

  • Tim Dassler

    (NORCE, Siva Innovasjonssenter
    UiT The Arctic University of Norway)

  • Trine Antonsen

    (NORCE, Siva Innovasjonssenter)

  • Odd-Gunnar Wikmark

    (NORCE, Siva Innovasjonssenter)

  • Anne I. Myhr

    (NORCE, Siva Innovasjonssenter)

Abstract

New genomic techniques (NGTs) are powerful technologies with the potential to change how we relate to our food, food producers, and natural environment. Their use may affect the practices and values our societies are built on. Like many countries, the EU is currently revisiting its GMO legislation to accommodate the emergence of NGTs. We argue that assessing such technologies according to whether they are ‘safe enough’ will not create the public trust necessary for societal acceptance. 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. The European Group of Ethics in Science and Technology’s recent report on the Ethics of Genome Editing (2021) is important in calling attention to a series of fundamental issues that ought to be included in debates on the regulation and use of NGTs to ensure public trust in these technologies and in regulating authorities. With the great power of NGTs comes great responsibility, and the way forward must be grounded in responsible research, innovation, and regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10367-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10367-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10367-6
    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/s10460-022-10367-6?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. 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.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    3. Klara Fischer & Elisabeth Ekener-Petersen & Lotta Rydhmer & Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015. "Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Sherry R. Arnstein, 2019. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(1), pages 24-34, January.
    5. Abby Kinchy, 2010. "Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 505-517, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis & Amaranta Herrero, 2016. "Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Albert V. Norström & Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F. Löf & Simon West & Carina Wyborn & Patricia Balvanera & Angela T. Bednarek & Elena M. Bennett & Reinette Biggs & Ariane Bremond & Bruce M. Campbe, 2020. "Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 182-190, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Cisnetto, Valentina & Barlow, James, 2020. "The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrei, Mariana & Rohdin, Patrik & Thollander, Patrik & Wallin, Johanna & Tångring, Magnus, 2024. "Exploring a decarbonization framework for a Swedish automotive paint shop," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    7. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    8. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Angela Filipe & Alicia Renedo & Cicely Marston, 2017. "The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-6, May.
    11. Clare Gupta, 2018. "Contested fields: an analysis of anti-GMO politics on Hawai’i Island," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 181-192, March.
    12. Leonardsson, Hanna & Kronsell, Annica & Andersson, Erik & Burman, Anders & Blanes, Ruy & Da Costa, Karen & Hasselskog, Malin & Stepanova, Olga & Öjendal, Joakim, 2021. "Achieving peaceful climate change adaptation through transformative governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Indranil De & Rooba Hasan & Mubashshir Iqbal, 2022. "Natural Treatment Systems and Importance of Social Cost Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Felipe Gallardo-López & Mario Alejandro Hernández-Chontal & Pedro Cisneros-Saguilán & Ariadna Linares-Gabriel, 2018. "Development of the Concept of Agroecology in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    15. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Cristian Campagnaro & Nicolò Di Prima & Sara Ceraolo, 2021. "Co‐Design and the Collective Creativity Processes in Care Systems and Places," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 130-142.
    17. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    18. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    19. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    20. 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.

    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:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10367-6. 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.