Breaking the impasse: Towards a forward-looking governance framework for gene editing with plants

Societal Impact StatementThe debate in Europe over how to govern novel techniques of gene editing in plants is fast developing into an impasse with actors rapidly consolidating positions on either side of the debate. Such polemic is not good for science nor for public policy if we are to develop the kinds of socio-technical innovations that are needed to harness socially resilient solutions to pressing global societal challenges, such as food security and climate change. We analyze how we arrived at this impasse and explore novel ways to move beyond it. Summary In this paper we examine the controversy surrounding the governance of gene editing in plants in Europe. First, we review social science scholarship, drawing lessons from the public controversy over GM crops and foods. Second, we describe the European policy debate on the gene editing of plants with a particular focus on how the debate is framed by dominant actors. Third, we review solutions other countries have sought, and in particular touch on a level-based approval system that Norway is proposing, articulated recently in a Dutch Rathenau Instituut report. Fourth, we introduce frameworks of responsible innovation as a way of aligning innovation trajectories with articulations and negotiations of broader societal values. We find that the lessons from the GM debate have been inadequately learnt and that the struggle over whether or not to amend the current GMO Directive has had the effect of reinforcing established positions. As ways forward, we argue that the application of the Norwegian level-based regulatory framework can help move the focus away from assessments on safety to a tiered assessment of socio-economic considerations, and that a framework of responsible innovation can help transform the cultures and practices of research. We conclude by setting out some challenges for the plant science community to engage in responsible research and innovation, both to operate as an honest broker and to engage in early, constructive and on-going public dialogue.