IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v39y2022i4d10.1007_s10460-022-10328-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Lonneke M. Poort

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Jac. A. A. Swart

    (University of Groningen)

  • Ruth Mampuys

    (The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy)

  • Arend J. Waarlo

    (Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University)

  • Paul C. Struik

    (Wageningen University and Research)

  • Lucien Hanssen

    (Deining Societal Communication & Technology Governance)

Abstract

End of April 2021, the European Commission published its study on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The study involved a consultation of Member States and stakeholders. This study reveals a split on whether current legislation should be maintained or adapted to take account of scientific progress and the risk level of NGT products. This split was predictable. New technological developments challenge both ethical viewpoints and regulatory institutions; and contribute to the growing divide between science and society that value ‘technological innovations’ differently. Such controversies are often characterized as ‘unstructured’ because of nearly unbridgeable positions on entangled scientific and value-laden issues. Initiatives for stakeholder involvement, such as consultation or participation, often focus on reaching a ‘shared vision’ without exploring the diverse societal concerns and values behind these positions. To resolve the EU stalemate in NGT regulation, we advocate to bring back politics in the EU decision-making process instead of hiding it under the veil of science, the need for regulatory change and public support. A more productive and justified use of genuine stakeholder participation is possible, if participants and deliberation design meet the criteria of what we call participation ethics. Drawing from our applied experience exploring the ethics of genetic modification, we believe that this approach can lead to more robust political decision-making and restore societal confidence in the governance of contested issues such as NGTs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10328-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10328-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10328-z
    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/s10460-022-10328-z?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. Linde Inghelbrecht & Gert Goeminne & Guido Huylenbroeck & Joost Dessein, 2017. "When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 543-557, September.
    2. Béné, Christophe & Oosterveer, Peter & Lamotte, Lea & Brouwer, Inge D. & de Haan, Stef & Prager, Steve D. & Talsma, Elise F. & Khoury, Colin K., 2019. "When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 116-130.
    3. 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.
    4. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Sahil Loomba & Alexandre Figueiredo & Simon J. Piatek & Kristen Graaf & Heidi J. Larson, 2021. "Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 337-348, March.
    7. Rosa Binimelis & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2016. "Inclusion and Implementation of Socio-Economic Considerations in GMO Regulations: Needs and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. David Castle & Keith Culver, 2013. "Getting to 'No': The method of contested exchange," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 34-42, February.
    9. Sahil Loomba & Alexandre Figueiredo & Simon J. Piatek & Kristen Graaf & Heidi J. Larson, 2021. "Author Correction: Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 960-960, July.
    10. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    11. Richard Bull & Judith Petts & James Evans, 2008. "Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the impossible?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 701-716.
    12. Sheila Jasanoff & J. Benjamin Hurlbut, 2018. "A global observatory for gene editing," Nature, Nature, vol. 555(7697), pages 435-437, March.
    13. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    14. Sahil Loomba & Alexandre Figueiredo & Simon J. Piatek & Kristen Graaf & Heidi J. Larson, 2021. "Author Correction: Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 407-407, March.
    15. Ulrike Felt & Maximilian Fochler, 2008. "The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(7), pages 489-499, August.
    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. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Motta, Matt & Motta, Gabriella & Stecula, Dominik, 2023. "Sick as a Dog? The Prevalence, Politicization, and Health Policy Consequences of Canine Vaccine Hesitancy (CVH)," SocArXiv qmbkv, Center for Open Science.
    3. Gabriele Beccari & Matilde Giaccherini & Joanna Kopinska & Gabriele Rovigatti, 2023. "Refueling a Quiet Fire: Old Truthers and New Discontent in the Wake of Covid-19," CESifo Working Paper Series 10803, CESifo.
    4. Kejriwal, Saransh & Sheth, Sarjan & Silpa, P.S. & Sarkar, Sumit & Guha, Apratim, 2022. "Attaining herd immunity to a new infectious disease through multi-stage policies incentivising voluntary vaccination," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    5. Ahmad Naoras Bitar & Mohammed Zawiah & Fahmi Y Al-Ashwal & Mohammed Kubas & Ramzi Mukred Saeed & Rami Abduljabbar & Ammar Ali Saleh Jaber & Syed Azhar Syed Sulaiman & Amer Hayat Khan, 2021. "Misinformation, perceptions towards COVID-19 and willingness to be vaccinated: A population-based survey in Yemen," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Bussolo,Maurizio & Sarma,Nayantara & Torre,Ivan, 2022. "Indirect Effects of COVID-19 Nonpharmaceutical Interventions on Vaccine Acceptance," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10106, The World Bank.
    7. Hess, Stephane & Lancsar, Emily & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Song, Fangqing & van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline & Alaba, Olufunke A. & Amaris, Gloria & Arellana, Julián & Basso, Leonardo J. & Ben, 2022. "The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    8. Hoy,Christopher Alexander & Rajee Kanagavel & Cameron,Corey Morales, 2022. "Intra-Household Dynamics and Attitudes toward Vaccines : Experimental and Survey Evidencefrom Zambia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10136, The World Bank.
    9. Peter Romero & Eisaku Daniel Tanaka & Yuki Mikiya & Shinya Yoshino & Atsushi Oshio & Teruo Nakatsuma, 2023. "Vaccine Uptake - Geographic Psychology or the Information Field?," Working Papers e191, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    10. Giulio Grossi, 2023. "The policy is always greener: impact heterogeneity of Covid-19 vaccination lotteries in the US," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 32(4), pages 1351-1375, October.
    11. Per A. Andersson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll, 2022. "The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Vilmantė Pakalniškienė & Antanas Kairys & Vytautas Jurkuvėnas & Vita Mikuličiūtė & Viktorija Ivleva, 2022. "Could Belief in Fake News Predict Vaccination Behavior in the Elderly?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Whittingham, Jennifer & Wynberg, Rachel, 2021. "Is the Feminist Ethics of Care framework a useful lens for GM crop risk appraisal in the global south?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Maureen Ayikoru, & Cole, Jennifer & Dodds, Klaus & Atcero, Milburga & Bada, Joseph K. & Petrikova, Ivica & Worodria, William, 2023. "Addressing vaccine concerns through the spectrum of vaccine acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    15. Bruno Arpino & Valeria Bordone & Giorgio Di Gessa, 2022. "Close kin influence COVID-19 precautionary behaviors and vaccine acceptance of older individuals," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2022_02, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    16. Jiela Marie H. Taneza & Roel Jr. D. Apas, 2023. "Ordeals in Combating COVID-19 Pandemic and Acceptability of COVID-19 Vaccine Among Frontliners in Digos City, Davao del Sur," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(5), pages 1139-1164, May.
    17. Sauermann, Henry & Vohland, Katrin & Antoniou, Vyron & Balázs, Bálint & Göbel, Claudia & Karatzas, Kostas & Mooney, Peter & Perelló, Josep & Ponti, Marisa & Samson, Roeland & Winter, Silvia, 2020. "Citizen science and sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    18. 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.
    19. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    20. 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.

    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:39:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10328-z. 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.