Does “Precision” Matter? A Q Study of Public Interpretations of Gene Editing in Agriculture

Abstract

Gene editing (GE) technologies are rapidly gaining traction as an alternative to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. While proponents claim the critical need for GE to address climate change and food security and assert its similarity to conventional breeding, critics argue that these technologies bring similar concerns to GMOs, such as supporting industrial agriculture and enhancing corporate control and ownership. But how do public groups make sense of these technologies? While incorporating public concerns is key to responsible and ethical innovation, minimal research explores how people make sense of emerging applications. We offer an exploratory Q study that investigates how one public group applies interpretive frames to understand applications of novel GE and related technologies. We find participants apply three different frames, invoking applications as (1) necessitating a system critical lens, (2) worthy of pragmatic of consideration, or (3) a deeply ambiguous prospect. These frames, we argue, articulate visions of particular sociotechnical futures, most of which are contrary or orthogonal to proponents’ assumptions. Instead, we find participants concerned less with the precision of techniques or the origin of genes used and more often with whether these applications reify dominant industrial practices and if viable alternatives exist.