IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v17y2023i2p411-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prescribing engagement in environmental risk assessment for gene drive technology

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Hartley
  • Adam Kokotovich
  • Caroline McCalman

Abstract

Gene drive technology is a nascent biotechnology with the potential to purposefully alter or eliminate a species. There have been broad calls for engagement to inform gene drive governance. Over the past seven years, the gene drive community has been developing risk assessment guidelines to determine what form future gene drive risk assessments take, including whether and how they involve engagement. To explore who is developing these guidelines and how engagement in risk assessment is being prescribed, we conduct a document analysis of gene drive risk assessment guideline documents from 2014 to 2020. We found that a narrow set of organizations have developed 10 key guideline documents and that with only one exception the documents prescribe a narrow, vague, or completely absent role for engagement in gene drive risk assessment. Without substantively prescribed engagement in guidelines, the relevance, rigor, and trustworthiness of gene drive risk assessment and governance will suffer.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Hartley & Adam Kokotovich & Caroline McCalman, 2023. "Prescribing engagement in environmental risk assessment for gene drive technology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 411-424, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:2:p:411-424
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12452?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. Millstone, Erik, 2009. "Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 624-636, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Andrew Stirling, 1998. "Risk at a turning point?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 97-109, April.
    4. Stephen Abbott & Sara Shaw & Julian Elston, 2004. "Comparative analysis of health policy implementation:," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 259-266.
    5. Megan Scudellari, 2019. "Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: the promise of gene drives," Nature, Nature, vol. 571(7764), pages 160-162, July.
    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. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    2. Kvakkestad, Valborg & Vatn, Arild, 2011. "Governing uncertain and unknown effects of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 524-532, January.
    3. Alena L. Bishop & Víctor López Del Amo & Emily M. Okamoto & Zsolt Bodai & Alexis C. Komor & Valentino M. Gantz, 2022. "Double-tap gene drive uses iterative genome targeting to help overcome resistance alleles," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    5. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    7. Alex Coad & Gianluca Biggi & Elisa Giuliani, 2021. "Asbestos, leaded petrol, and other aberrations: comparing countries’ regulatory responses to disapproved products and technologies," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 201-233, February.
    8. Watson, Jim & Gross, Rob & Ketsopoulou, Ioanna & Winskel, Mark, 2015. "The impact of uncertainties on the UK's medium-term climate change targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 685-695.
    9. Lu, Cheng & Aritua, Bernard & de Leijer, Harrie & van Liere, Richard & Lee, Paul Tae-Woo, 2023. "Exploring causes of growth in China's inland waterway transport, 1978–2018: Documentary analysis approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 47-58.
    10. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Gébert, Judit, 2014. "The outlines of innovation policy in the capability approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 93-102.
    11. Dennis Anderson, 1998. "On the Effects of Social and Economic Policies on Future Carbon Emissions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 419-453, December.
    12. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    13. Dimitriou, Harry T. & Ward, E. John & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 7-20.
    14. Xiang, Tao & Malik, Tariq H. & Nielsen, Klaus, 2020. "The impact of population pressure on global fertiliser use intensity, 1970–2011: An analysis of policy-induced mediation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Andy Stirling & Sue Mayer, 2001. "A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 529-555, August.
    16. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    17. Waldman, Kurt B. & Kerr, John M., 2015. "Is Food and Drug Administration policy governing artisan cheese consistent with consumers’ preferences?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 71-80.
    18. Daiki Kishishita & Susumu Sato, 2021. "Optimal risk regulation of monopolists with subjective risk assessment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 251-279, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Larsen, Katarina & Svane, Örjan, 2005. "Routines and Communities of Practice in Public Environmental Procurement Processes," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 44, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:2:p:411-424. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.