TWN Info Service on Biosafety
30 January 2023
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Why ‘Safe Enough’ is Not Good Enough in Debates on New Gene Technologies
New genomic techniques (NGTs) are powerful technologies with the potential to change how we relate to our food, food producers, and natural environment. Thus, they need to be managed and regulated responsibly to engender public trust that their potential willbe released in ways that serve society, the planet, and future generations. The ‘safe enough’ framing enacted in current regulations through standard risk assessment will not be able to do this because it rests on outmoded ideas on ‘core’ science and on technological progression narratives supported by (yet) unproven benefits and opaque economic interests.
Going beyond the natural (‘core’) science focus of the ‘safe enough’ framing would allow discussions of the socio-economic and cultural aspects of possible coexistence of GMO-based and GMO-free forms of production, and of the benefits, drawbacks, and alternatives to NGTs. We need open, transparent, and inclusive societal debate on NGTs’ scientific foundation; their benefits and drawbacks within specific geographic, ecological, socio-economic, and cultural contexts; and their overall alignment with agreed-upon development goals.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
__________________________________________________________________________
WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY: WHY ‘SAFE ENOUGH’IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN DEBATES ON NEW GENE TECHNOLOGIES
Kjeldaas, S., Dassler, T., Antonsen, T., Wikmark, O. G., & Myhr, A. I.
Agriculture and Human Values, 1-13.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-022-10367-6
25 October 2022
Abstract
New genomic techniques (NGTs) are powerful technologies with the potential to change how we relate to our food, food producers, and natural environment. Their use may affect the practices and values our societies are built on. Like many countries, the EU is currently revisiting its GMO legislation to accommodate the emergence of NGTs. We argue that assessing such technologies according to whether they are ‘safe enough’ will not create the public trust necessary for societal acceptance. To avoid past mistakes of under- or miscommunication about possible impacts, we need open, transparent, and inclusive societal debate on the nature of the science of gene (editing) technologies, on how to use them, and whether they contribute to sustainable solutions to societal and environmental challenges. To be trustworthy, GMO regulation must demonstrate the authorities’ ability to manage the scientific, socio-economic, environmental, and ethical complexities and uncertainties associated with NGTs. Regulators and authorities should give equal attention to the reflexive and the emotional aspects of trust and make room for honest public and stakeholder inclusion processes. The European Group of Ethics in Science and Technology’s recent report on the Ethics of Genome Editing (2021) is important in calling attention to a series of fundamental issues that ought to be included in debates on the regulation and use of NGTs to ensure public trust in these technologies and in regulating authorities. With the great power of NGTs comes great responsibility, and the way forward must be grounded in responsible research, innovation, and regulation.