The rapid development of CRISPR-based gene editing has been accompanied by a polarized governance debate about the status of CRISPR-edited crops as genetically modified organisms. This article argues that the polarization around the governance of gene editing partly reflects a failure of public engagement with the current state of research in genomics and postgenomics. CRISPR-based gene-editing technology has become embedded in a narrow narrative about the ease and precision of the technique that presents the gene as a stable object under technological control. By tracing the considerably destabilized scientific understanding of the gene in genomics and postgenomics, this article highlights that this publicly mediated ontology strategically avoids positioning the “ease of CRISPR-based editing” in the wider context of the “complexity of the gene.” While this strategic narrowness of CRISPR narratives aims to create public support for gene-editing technologies, we argue that it stands in the way of socially desirable anticipatory governance and open public dialogue about societal promises and the unintended consequences of gene editing. In addressing the polarization surrounding CRISPR-based editing technology, the article emphasizes the need for engagement with the complex state of postgenomic science that avoids strategic simplifications of the scientific literature in promoting or opposing the commercial use of the gene-editing technology.

Biotechnologies in agriculture and food are increasingly governed by both state and nonstate actors. In this article, we explore emerging tensions and contestations in the United States over how gene-editing technologies in agriculture and food should be governed and by whom. This article is framed theoretically by the literatures examining the politics of state and nonstate governance of the agrifood and biotechnology sectors. We draw on semistructured interviews with 45 key actors in the United States, including representatives of regulatory agencies, commodity groups, consumer and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), biotechnology and food industry, and scientists. In contrast to assumptions that commodity group and industry actors would share a preference for limited or self-regulation, we find growing contestations, with some calling for novel forms of regulatory oversight. Our findings reveal new tensions, fractures, and realignments between and among government, industry, and NGOs actors over gene-editing governance. These tensions and realignments reflect and respond to demands for broader engagement of publics and greater transparency in the governance of biotechnologies in agriculture and food. We argue that these emerging tensions and realignments between and among state and nonstate actors reflect efforts by these actors to incorporate lessons from the genetically modified organism labeling fight as they seek to (re)shape the governance of gene editing in a manner that reflects their interests.

Gene editing technologies allow users to make in vivo (live) changes to an organism’s DNA. Advances in the field of gene editing have made it arguably more precise, efficient, flexible, and cheaper compared to previous technologies. This has generated an upsurge of interest in gene editing and its governance, including in livestock applications. Although gene editing in livestock promises benefits, it also raises technical, ethical, and societal questions alongside the prospect of (radical) transformation. Since the technology is still to be developed into marketable products, it is the designs, visions, or what we term “sociotechnical imaginaries” that shape gene editing technologies and that represent an important site for sociological inquiry. In this article, based on an analysis of interviews with breeding company representatives and agricultural scientists in the Netherlands, we analyze the assumptions, values, and commitments that underpin their imaginaries. These imaginaries matter, since their negotiation will help structure how the technology develops and how it will subsequently transform livestock and human–animal relations. In our analysis, we analyze the discursive practices from the interview data distilling three sociotechnical imaginaries that shape and underpin how respondents discuss gene editing in livestock. Elaborating the sociotechnical imaginary concept to make it more amenable to the emerging dynamics of gene editing in livestock, we show how imaginaries need to be studied “in place” and in terms of “material practices.” Even though each of the imaginaries frame livestock gene editing as desirable and beneficial, they nevertheless have differential effects in how they structure industry, researcher, government, and consumer/citizen relations. We conclude by discussing how and why sociotechnical imaginaries on livestock gene editing matter and their implications for governance and research.

Biotechnology describes a range of human activities in medicine, agriculture, and environmental management. One biotechnology in particular, gene technology, continues to evolve both in capacity and potential to benefit and harm society. The purpose of this article is to offer a policy bridge from unproductive descriptions of gene technology to useful methods for identifying sources of significant biological and socioeconomic risk in complex food systems. Farmers and the public could be voluntarily and involuntarily interacting with new techniques of genome editing and gene silencing in entirely new ways, limiting the usefulness of previous gene technology histories to predict safety. What we believe is a more consistent, verifiable, and practical approach is to identify the critical control points that emerge where the scale effects of a human activity diverge between risk and safety. These critical control points are where technical experts can collaborate with publics with different expertise to identify and manage the technology. The use of technical terminology describing biochemical-level phenomena discourages publics that are not technical experts from contesting the embedded cultural perspectives and uncertainty in “scientific” concepts and prejudice the risk discourse by ignoring other issues of significance to society. From our perspective as gene technologists, we confront the use of pseudo-scale language in risk discourse and propose an escape path from clashes over whether risks that arise spontaneously (from nature) can be perfectly mimicked by gene technology to a discussion on how to best control the risks created by human activity. Scale is conceptually implicit and explicit in gene technology regulation, but there is no agreement about what scales are most useful to managing risk and social expectations. Both differentiated governance (risk-tiered) and responsible research and innovation models could accommodate the critical control points mechanism that we describe.

The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 has drawn attention to gene editing technologies that enable genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome. Applied to plant modification, gene editing technologies are expected to improve crop productivity and profitability, quality, food safety, and the environment, while also enabling breeders to develop entirely new varieties. Excitement about these technologies spread quickly from the global to national arenas and from the scientific community to industry and to policy makers. However, this enthusiasm stands in counterpoint to the public’s deep skepticism about genetically modified foods. Drawing ideas from the idea of performativity of expectations, this article examines the social dynamics through which the new field of plant gene editing technologies has emerged in Japan by looking into the ways in which this new field is framed, understood, and envisaged in science policy documents and how the promises made in these documents serve to attract the interest of necessary allies, drawing resources, and forming sociotechnical networks, while also impeding the emergence of a counternarrative. This article uses varying sources to answer its research questions, including science policy texts and other types of archival records, such as meeting agendas and minutes, slides, parliamentary records, and specialized magazine articles. In addition, a series of participant observations took place at a range of meetings such as science policy working groups and public forums. The study found that even though genetically modified organisms stand as a political antecedent to gene editing, and thus could have interfered with the formation of this new field, collective frameworks grounded in epistemic nationalism facilitated the research and development of gene editing technologies, with material effects such as attracting institutional support and funding.

This article explores attitudes of stakeholders involved in biotechnology towards the Responsible Innovation (RI) framework. As a framework for governance, RI has received increasing scholarly attention but has yet to be successfully integrated into U.S. research and innovation policy. Using a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the attitudes of different biotechnology stakeholders, particularly those working in areas related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and the environment, towards the principles and practices of RI. Homogenous focus groups (organized by stakeholder affiliation) and pre- and post-focus group surveys were used to measure attitudes towards RI. We designed the survey questions according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and examined the agreement of stakeholders with policy core beliefs (general principles of RI) and secondary beliefs (implementation practices of RI). Although all stakeholder groups had neutral to positive attitudes towards RI general principles, we found significant differences in their reactions to the scholarly definitions of RI and in their attitudes towards practices to implement RI. In comparison to government and advocacy groups, stakeholders promoting biotechnology innovations–industry, trade organizations, and academics–had more negative reactions to social science definitions of RI and to RI practices that relinquish control to people outside of technology development pipelines. Qualitative analysis of focus-groups revealed barriers for implementing RI practices. For example, innovators were cynical about including external voices in innovation pathways due to inflexible funding programs and were concerned about potential delays to innovation given the highly competitive environments for financing and patents. In order to help address these tensions, we call for the co-design of RI practices between biotechnology innovators and other stakeholders. The opening-up of biotechnology innovation to RI practices of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity will likely be important for future, public legitimacy of emerging genetic engineering applications such as gene editing and gene drives.

A host of technologies is rapidly entering agriculture. These new technologies—particularly gene editing—represent multifaceted shifts beyond “genetic modification” (GM), and are outpacing both public understanding and the capacity of regulatory regimes. This paper employs the case of the organic sectors in Canada and the United States, strongholds of GM resistance, to examine conversations about gene-editing technologies unfolding within the organic community, and elucidate their implications for the sector. We employ the concept of “boundary work” to illuminate how key actors and institutions delineate the concept of organic breeding in the face of emerging technologies. We draw upon semi-structured interviews with organic sector representatives, a review of documents published by organic organizations, and data from participant observation. We find that the organic community is reaffirming and deepening boundaries in response to arguments made by proponents of gene editing. Both internal and external pressures on the sector are facilitating a dampening effect on conversations about the boundaries between gene editing and organic agriculture, as the sector is compelled to present a united voice against the affront of new genetic technologies. The sector is also redrawing existing boundaries, as the advent of gene editing has forced conversations about the compatibility of both new and established breeding methods with organic. The resulting questions about what distinguishes acceptable levels of human intervention in plant genomes are highlighting some differences within the diverse organic community. We also argue that debates about gene editing and organic breeding may be “bounding out” important actors from deliberation processes, and note initial attempts to reckon with this exclusion.

Many trends in agricultural biotechnology have extended fluidly from the first era of genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to the era of gene editing. But the high-profile, explicit, and assertive discourse of democratization with gene editing — especially CRISPR-Cas9 — is something new. In this paper, I draw on semi-structured interviews with gene editors, policy analysts, and communications experts as well as with critical academic and civil society experts. I use Science and Technology Studies and political ecology lenses to unpack democratization in three main parts. First is democratizing discourses: On what grounds is CRISPR said to be democratic? Who is saying so? How do dissident communities respond to these narratives? Second is agricultural applications, with a focus on the Innovative Genomics Institute’s work in developing gene-edited food crops, including a case of saveable clonal hybrid rice. Third is governance, where I contrast US Department of Agriculture regulations and the CRISPRcon conference as “closed” and “invited” spaces, respectively, for democratic participation. Next, I argue that “created spaces,” in which power is held by typically delegitimized actors and ideas, offer an opening for working out democracy on the terrain of biotechnology. I conclude with a set of principles and practices for CRISPR governance based on the idea that democratization of biotechnology requires epistemic justice. By gathering multiple, partial knowledges together, we move beyond narrow risk-benefit framings to better evaluate not just what CRISPR is and does, but what democracy means and whom it serves.