79. Genome editing: moving the goalposts on the GM playing field?

Abstract

The rhetoric of claims for genetic modification of unprecedented precision and unlimited scope have proved exaggerated. Public rejection in Europe was in part because of no tangible benefits to consumers, perceived risks, and imposition without choice. Genome editing techniques have emerged as powerful tools capable of achieving the precision and range of application that ‘conventional’ genetic modification (GM) has not. It also makes possible modifications in food animals and animal disease, not hitherto regarded as worthwhile by the major livestock breeders. This paper explores to what extent genome editing changes the ethical landscape of GM, whether it might be more acceptable to publics, and the implications for policy and regulation. It revisits the insights from our Engineering Genesis study of 1998 on the main value considerations of GM food, crops and animals, and assesses how genome editing might affect fundamental ethical objections. It examines the complex question of what is or is not genetic modification, and assesses what ethical concerns genome editing may or may not satisfy. Avoiding transgenesis might be convincing for those whose basic concern is about mixing genes across species or violating evolved or God-given ‘barriers’. The notion that the edited sequence is capable of occurring naturally would be attractive if one’s objection was to creating an unnatural gene construct. On the other hand, it would not impress those for whom any genetic alteration beyond selective breeding is unacceptable, or simply fear the uncertainties of scientists ‘tampering with genes’. In the light of this, the acceptability is considered of various genome editing applications in animals and crops for food. Recent insights are included from using our Democs card game to include genome editing issues. A more sensitive regulatory system would be essential but should not be expected to solve the GM problem. The largest factor may be the perceived usefulness of the application to humans, against which the perception of risk and uncertainty might in some cases tip the balance of public acceptability.