NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing
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.
KeywordsAgricultural biotechnology Plant genome editing NGOs Ethics Nuffield council on bioethics
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats
Federal ethics committee on non-human biotechnology
Genetically modified organism
New breeding techniques
New plant breeding techniques
Transcription activator-like effector nucleases
United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland
Zinc finger nucleases
This work was supported by funding from the following sources: the Governance and Public Policy Research Priority Area Award, University of Nottingham; the Business, Institutions and Policy Research Cluster Award, University of Exeter; and the Research Development Fund, Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield. We would like to thank Penny Polson (University of Manchester) for her assistance in data collection and Liz O’Neill (GM Freeze) for her assistance in the identification of and initial contact with participant NGOs.
- Bee-Life., Corproate Europe Observatory., Econexus., Via Campesina., Friends of the Earth Europe., GeneWatch UK., Greenpeace European Unit. and Testbiotech. 2015. Open letter to the Commission on new genetic engineering methods, Testbiotech. https://www.testbiotech.org/en/content/open-letter-commission-new-genetic-engineering-methods-january-2015. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.
- Beyond GM. 2016. GMO or GM-NO—How will the EU regulate new plant breeding technologies? https://beyond-gm.org/gmo-or-gm-no-how-will-the-eu-regulate-new-plant-breeding-technologies/. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.
- Bunton, R., and A. Peterson. 2005. Genetic governance: Health risk and ethics in the biotech era. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Confédération Paysanne and Others v Premier Ministre and Ministre de L’agriculture, de L’agroalimentaire et de la Forêt. Case C-528/16. 2018. European Court of Justice. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62016CJ0528. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
- Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH). 2012. Release of genetically modified plants—ethical requirements, Berne: Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology. https://www.ekah.admin.ch/en/ecnh-opinions-and-reports/ecnh-reports/. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
- GM Freeze. 2016. GM Freeze response to Nuffield Council on Bioethics call for evidence on Genome Editing. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/genome-editing-evidence-GM-Freeze.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.
- GM Watch. 2016. Brussels biotech lobby’s last push for “GM 2.0” technologies to escape regulation. https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16690-brussels-biotech-lobby-s-last-push-for-gm-2-0-technologies-to-escape-regulation. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.
- Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
- Greenpeace International. 2016. Nobel laureates sign letter on Greenpeace ‘Golden’ rice position—statement. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position-reactive-statement/. Accessed 14 Mar 2017.
- Hartley, S. 2016a. The treatment of social and ethical concerns in policy responses to agricultural biotechnology: An historical analysis. In The intellectual property–regulatory complex: Overcoming barriers to innovation in agricultural genomics, ed. E. Marden, R. Godfrey, and R. Manion, 42–67. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, R., S. Hartley, W. Pearce, and L. O’Neill. 2017. Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing?: NGOs’ opposition to agricultural biotechnologies is rooted in scepticism about the framing of problems and solutions, rather than just emotion and dogma. EMBO Reports 18 (12): 2090–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2015. Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on Science and Technoloy inquiry on Genetically Modified Insects. Evidence Session No. 2, London: House of Lords. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/GMInsects/GMInsectsevidence.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
- Krueger, R., and M. Casey. 2014. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Kuzma, J., A. Kokotovich, and A. Kuzhabekova. 2016. Attitudes towards governance of gene editing. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 18 (1): 69–92.Google Scholar
- Lusser, M., C. Parisi., D. Plan., and E. Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2011. New plant breeding techniques State-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development, Brussels: European Commission Joint Research Centre. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/new-plant-breeding-techniques-state-art-and-prospects-commercial-development. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2012. Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good, London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/emerging-biotechnologies. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016. Genome editing: An ethical review, London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2017. How the Council works. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/about/how-council-works/. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2018. Our Funding. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/about/how-council-funded. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
- Phillips, P., D. Castle., S. Smyth., H. Venema., M. McCandless, and C. Christensen. 2010. A Response to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Consultation Paper: New Approaches to Biofuels, Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Peter-Phillips-etal.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
- Shukla-Jones, A., S. Friedrichs., and D. Winickoff. 2018. Gene editing in an international context: Scientific, economic and social issues across sectors, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2018/04. OECD iLibrary. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/gene-editing-in-an-international-context_38a54acb-en. Accessed 13 Sept 2018.
- Smith, R. 2016. Constructing ‘the ethical’ in the development of biofuels. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology and Social Policy. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
- Support Precision Agriculture. 2016. Laureates Letter Supporting Precision Agriculture (GMOs). http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2017.
- van Mil, A., H. Hopkins., and S. Kinsella. 2017. Potential uses for genetic technologies: dialogue and engagement research conducted on behalf of the Royal Society. London: Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/genetic-technologies-public-dialogue-hvm-full-report.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2018.