Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology

New genomic techniques, old divides: Stakeholder attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation in the EU and UK

The European Union and United Kingdom are in the process of establishing new regulation regarding the use of new genomic techniques in crop and animal breeding. As part of this process, consultations have been launched to understand the views of stakeholders towards the use of new genomic techniques in plant and animal breeding. The responsible research and innovation framework emphasises the importance of dialogue between technology developers and stakeholders, including the public, but what are the opinions of stakeholders towards the regulation of NGTs in Europe and do they view these consultations as opportunities to engage with technology governance? We conducted semi-structured interviews with experts from a range of agri-food stakeholder groups in the European Union and United Kingdom to understand current attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation, how they viewed the process of consultation in both places and what influence they felt they had in shaping regulations. We found that the discussion is similar in both EU and UK, with predictable and fixed opinions determined by attitudes towards the perceived risks associated with direct mutagenesis. Both UK and EU consultations were considered to have the same weaknesses and stakeholders discussed a desire for more dialogic forms of engagement. We highlight several options for new forms of involvement in biotechnology regulation by exploring relevant responsible research and innovation literature.

Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture

This paper evaluates the U.S. regulatory review of three emerging biotechnology products according to parameters, practices, and endpoints of assessments that are important to stakeholders and publics. First, we present a summary of the literature on variables that are important to non-expert publics in governing biotech products, including ethical, social, policy process, and risk and benefit parameters. Second, we draw from our USDA-funded project results that surveyed stakeholders with subject matter expertise about their attitudes towards important risk, benefit, sustainability, and societal impact parameters for assessing novel agrifood technologies, including biotech. Third, we evaluate the regulatory assessments of three food and agricultural biotechnology case studies that have been reviewed under U.S. regulatory agencies and laws of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, including gene-edited soybeans, beef cattle, and mustard greens. Evaluation of the regulatory review process was based on parameters identified in steps 1 and 2 which were deemed important to both publics and stakeholders. Based on this review, we then propose several policy options for U.S. federal agencies to strengthen their oversight processes to better align with a broader range of parameters to support sustainable agrifood products that rely on novel technologies. These policy options include 1) those that would not require new institutions or legal foundations (such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements and/or requiring a minimal level of safety data), 2) those that would require a novel institutional or cross-institutional framework (such as developing a publicly-available website and/or performing holistic sustainability assessments), and 3) those that would require the agencies to have additional legal authorities (such as requiring agencies to review biotech products according to a minimal set of health, environmental, and socio-economic parameters). Overall, the results of this analysis will be important for guiding policy practice and formulation in the regulatory assessment of emerging biotechnology products that challenge existing legal and institutional frameworks.

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

The dexterity and affordability of gene-editing technologies promise wide-ranging applications in agriculture. Aiming to take advantage of this, proponents emphasize benefits such as the climate-mitigating promises of gene editing. Critics, on the other hand, argue that gene editing will perpetuate industrialized forms of agriculture and its concomitant environmental and social problems. Across a representative sample of US and Canadian residents (n = 1478), we investigate public views and perceptions of agricultural gene editing. We advance existing survey-based studies, which tend to focus on whether knowledge, familiarity, trust, or perceptions of naturalness predict views on gene editing. Instead, we examine whether broader societal concerns about industrialized food systems—a key claim about genetic engineering launched by critics—predicts comfort with gene editing. We also explore the predictive power of views of climate change as an urgent problem, following proponent arguments. Survey results explore gene editing views in reference to specific cases (e.g., drought-tolerant wheat) and specific alternatives (e.g., versus pesticide use). We find that people critical of industrialized food systems were most likely to express overall absolute opposition to the technology, whereas those concerned with the imminence of climate change were more likely to support climate-relevant gene editing. Our findings suggest the need for further research into the conditions upon which public groups find gene editing compelling or not—namely, if applications enhance or counter industrial food systems, or offer particular climate adaptive benefits. Furthermore, we argue that attention to broader societal priorities in surveys of perceptions may help address calls for responsible research and innovation as concerns gene editing.

Underdetermination and evidence-based policy

Safety assessment of technologies and interventions is often underdetermined by evidence. For example, scientists have collected evidence concerning genetically modified plants for decades. This evidence was used to ground opposing safety protocols for "stacked genetically modified" plants, in which two or more genetically modified plants are combined. Evidence based policy would thus be rendered more effective by an approach that accounts for underdetermination. Douglas (2012) proposes an explanatory approach, based on the criteria of transparency, empirical competence, internal consistency of explanations, and predictive potency. However, sometimes multiple explanations can satisfy these criteria. We propose an additional criterion based on converse abduction, where explanations are selected on the basis of ontological background assumptions as well as by evidence. We then apply our proposed scheme to the case of the regulation of stacked genetically modified plants. We discuss the implications and suggest follow-up work concerning the generalizability of the approach.

New Hope for a "Cursed" Crop? Understanding Stakeholder Attitudes to Plant Molecular Farming With Modified Tobacco in Europe

Plant molecular farming (PMF) with tobacco could provide a sustainable and cheap platform for the production of high-value proteins for medical use. It could also offer European tobacco farmers an alternative, healthful end use for their crop. New plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) offer a means of quickly and precisely optimizing molecular farming platforms for this purpose. However, there has been little empirical research focussing on the barriers and facilitators of these technologies in the agricultural sphere. Here, we explore key stakeholder perceptions toward this combination of technologies, exploring their understanding of risk and opportunity. We interviewed N = 24 key stakeholders - tobacco farmers, agronomists, policymakers, and researchers - in three tobacco-growing areas of Spain and Italy. Our findings demonstrate these stakeholders have a favorable attitude toward PMF with tobacco due to its beneficial medical purpose and the opportunity it provides farmers to continue growing tobacco in a declining European market. Tobacco producers also reported favorable views toward NPBTs, though for some this was contingent on their use for non-food crops like tobacco. Most stakeholders' concerns are economic in nature, such as potential profitability and demands for new agronomic practices or infrastructure. Tobacco producer associations were thought to be important facilitators for future PMF scale-up. The attitude toward these technologies by smoking tobacco companies is, however, unknown and constitutes a potential risk to the development of PMF.

Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation

Science is key to developing sustainable products and solutions. But scientists also need to work more with governments, industry and society to help implement those solutions.

Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products

Plant molecular farming (PMF) is a convenient and cost-effective way to produce high-value recombinant proteins that can be used in the production of a range of health products, from pharmaceutical therapeutics to cosmetic products. New plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) provide a means to enhance PMF systems more quickly and with greater precision than ever before. However, the feasibility, regulatory standing and social acceptability of both PMF and NPBTs are in question. This paper explores the perceptions of key stakeholders on two European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 programmes-Pharma-Factory and Newcotiana-towards the barriers and facilitators of PMF and NPBTs in Europe. One-on-one qualitative interviews were undertaken with N = 20 individuals involved in one or both of the two projects at 16 institutions in seven countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Spain and the UK). The findings indicate that the current EU regulatory environment and the perception of the public towards biotechnology are seen as the main barriers to scaling-up PMF and NPBTs. Competition from existing systems and the lack of plant-specific regulations likewise present challenges for PMF developing beyond its current niche. However, respondents felt that the communication of the benefits and purpose of NPBT PMF could provide a platform for improving the social acceptance of genetic modification. The importance of the media in this process was highlighted. This article also uses the multi-level perspective to explore the ways in which NPBTs are being legitimated by interested parties and the systemic factors that have shaped and are continuing to shape the development of PMF in Europe.

Comparative Proteomics of Phytase-transgenic Maize Seeds Indicates Environmental Influence is More Important than that of Gene Insertion

Proteomic differences were compared between phytase-transgenic (PT) maize seeds and nontransgenic (NT) maize seeds through two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) with mass spectrometry (MS). When maize was grown under field conditions, 30 differentially accumulated proteins (DAPs) were successfully identified in PT seeds (PT/NT). Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) functional classification of these proteins showed that the largest group was associated with posttranslational modifications. To investigate the effects of environmental factors, we further compared the seed protein profiles of the same maize planted in a greenhouse or under field conditions. There were 76 DAPs between the greenhouse- and field-grown NT maize seeds and 77 DAPs between the greenhouse- and field-grown PT maize seeds However, under the same planting conditions, there were only 43 DAPs (planted in the greenhouse) or 37 DAPs (planted in the field) between PT and NT maize seeds. The results revealed that DAPs caused by environmental factors were more common than those caused by the insertion of exogenous genes, indicating that the environment has much more important effects on the seed protein profiles. Our maize seed proteomics results also indicated that the occurrence of unintended effects is not specific to genetically modified crops (GMCs); instead, such effects often occur in traditionally bred plants. Our data may be beneficial for biosafety assessments of GMCs at the protein profile level in the future.

Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit-Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food

Genome editing has been hailed as both a revolutionary technology and potential solution to many agriculture-related and sustainability problems. However, owing to the past challenges and controversy generated by widespread rejection of genetic engineering, especially once applied to agriculture and food production, such innovations have also prompted their fair share of concern. Generally speaking, much of the discussion centers on the inadequacy or uncertainty of current regulatory regimes, partly owing to the vastly different approaches in the European Union and United States. Insofar as this focus on regulatory regimes is stimulated by the desire to bridge the divide between proponents and critics of genome editing, it risks losing sight of an essential aim of regulatory action: effectively responding to and fostering trust in consumers and the public. In this article, we thus assign priority to understanding the contours of individual dissatisfaction and its related responses. Toward this end, we apply and extend Hirschman's exit-voice framework to bring together, synthesize, and give much-needed substance to the diverse expressions of dissatisfaction and discontent with novel genome-editing technologies. Through the resulting synthetic framework, we then identify and evaluate which governance approaches can prevent actions seen to be problematic and, moreover, open up the space for a more active public. In this context, we devote specific attention to (i) use of labeling as a means to enable "exit" of consumers from markets and (ii) public deliberation as a possible expression of "voice." Indeed, both options are proposed and utilized in the context of genome editing, e.g., as a way for skeptical consumers to express their viewpoints, seek change in prevailing food systems, and navigate the conflicts and tensions from applying unique sets of values to assess the balance of risks and benefits. So far missing, though, is an evaluation of how well such efforts offer effective means for public expression, which is why we also link this framework to the wider issue of consumer sovereignty. Having done so, we conclude with a brief commentary on the potential and limitations of both options in the existing institutional framework of the EU.

Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques

New and emerging gene-editing techniques make it possible to target specific genes in species with greater speed and specificity than previously possible. Of major relevance for plant breeding, regulators and scientists are discussing how to regulate products developed using these gene-editing techniques. Such discussions include whether to adopt or adapt the current framework for GMO risk governance in evaluating the impacts of gene-edited plants, and derived products, on the environment, human and animal health and society. Product classification or definition is one of several aspects of the current framework being criticized. Further, knowledge gaps related to risk assessments of gene-edited organisms-for example of target and off-target effects of intervention in plant genomes-are also of concern. Resolving these and related aspects of the current framework will involve addressing many subjective, value-laden positions, for example how to specify protection goals through ecosystem service approaches. A process informed by responsible research and innovation practices, involving a broader community of people, organizations, experts, and interest groups, could help scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders address these complex, value-laden concerns related to gene-editing of plants with and for society.

Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists

The emerging field of synthetic biology, the (re-)designing and construction of biological parts, devices and systems for useful purposes, may simultaneously resolve some issues and raise others. In order to develop applications robustly and in the public interest, it is important to organize reflexive strategies of assessment and engagement in early stages of development. Against this backdrop, initiatives related to the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) have also appeared. This paper describes such an initiative: the construction of future scenarios to explore the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. We guided teams of synthetic biology students who participated in the large international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition, in constructing scenarios aimed at exploring the plausibility and desirability of potential synthetic biology innovations. In this paper we aim to examine to what extent, and how, constructing such future scenarios contributes to RRI. In order to do so, we conducted observations and interviews to understand what kind of learning and reflection was promoted by constructing the scenarios in terms of four dimensions, which are discussed prominently in the literature on RRI: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness. While we focus on how constructing future scenarios can contribute to strengthening RRI at a project (and individual) level, we also consider how far our experiment may foster RRI in the iGEM competition in general, and perhaps even inspire constructive collaboration between 'social scientists' and 'natural scientists' in the context of larger scientific research programmes.

How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations

Scientific risk evaluations are constructed by specific evidence, value judgements and biological background assumptions. The latter are the framework-setting suppositions we apply in order to understand some new phenomenon. That background assumptions co-determine choice of methodology, data interpretation, and choice of relevant evidence is an uncontroversial claim in modern basic science. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that, unless explicated, disagreements in background assumptions can lead to misunderstanding as well as miscommunication. Here, we extend the discussion on background assumptions from basic science to the debate over genetically modified (GM) plants risk assessment. In this realm, while the different political, social and economic values are often mentioned, the identity and role of background assumptions at play are rarely examined. We use an example from the debate over risk assessment of stacked genetically modified plants (GM stacks), obtained by applying conventional breeding techniques to GM plants. There are two main regulatory practices of GM stacks: (i) regulate as conventional hybrids and (ii) regulate as new GM plants. We analyzed eight papers representative of these positions and found that, in all cases, additional premises are needed to reach the stated conclusions. We suggest that these premises play the role of biological background assumptions and argue that the most effective way toward a unified framework for risk analysis and regulation of GM stacks is by explicating and examining the biological background assumptions of each position. Once explicated, it is possible to either evaluate which background assumptions best reflect contemporary biological knowledge, or to apply Douglas' 'inductive risk' argument.

Is it only the regulatory status? Broadening the debate on cisgenic plants

In current debates on emerging technologies for plant breeding in Europe, much attention has been given to the regulatory status of these techniques and their public acceptance. At present, both genetically modified plants with cisgenic approaches-using genes from crossable species-as well as transgenic approaches-using genes from different species-fall under GMO regulation in the EU and both are mandatorily labelled as GMOs. Researchers involved in the early development of cisgenic GM plants convey the message that the potential use and acceptance of cisgenic approaches will be seriously hindered if GMO regulations are not adjusted. Although the similar treatment and labelling of transgenic and cisgenic plants may be a legitimate concern for the marketability of a cisgenic GM plant, there are concerns around their commercialization that reach beyond the current focus on (de)regulation. In this paper, we will use the development of the cisgenic GM potato that aims to overcome 'late blight'-the most devastating potato disease worldwide-as a case to argue that it is important to recognize, reflect and respond to broader concerns than the dominant focus on the regulatory 'burden' and consumer acceptance. Based on insights we gained from discussing this case with diverse stakeholders within the agricultural sector and potato production in Norway during a series of workshops, we elaborate on additional issues such as the (technical) solution offered; different understandings of the late blight problem; the durability of the potato plant resistance; and patenting and ownership. Hence, this paper contributes to empirical knowledge on stakeholder perspectives on emerging plant breeding technologies, underscoring the importance to broaden the scope of the debate on the opportunities and challenges of agricultural biotechnologies, such as cisgenic GM plants. The paper offers policy-relevant input to ongoing efforts to broaden the scope of risk assessments of agricultural biotechnologies. We aim to contribute to the recognition of the complex socio-ecological, legal and political dimensions in which these technological developments are entangled as a means to acknowledge, discuss and respond to these concerns and thereby contribute to more comprehensive and responsible developments within agricultural biotechnology.