Introduction
Sustainable agriculture advocates have disagreed for decades over the potential for genetic engineering technologies to address sustainability concerns, and social scientists have expressed concerns about this debate becoming polarized for just as long (Brush, Reference Brush2001; Buttel, Reference Buttel2005; Ervin et al., Reference Ervin, Glenna and Jussaume2010). One camp emphasizes technological solutions to the problems of food security and environmental impacts (Editorial, 2024). The other camp emphasizes the systemic causes behind agronomic problems and underlying social justice concerns (Ervin et al., Reference Ervin, Glenna and Jussaume2010; Hopma and Woods, Reference Hopma and Woods2014; Jansen, Reference Jansen2015; Isbell et al., Reference Isbell, Tobin, Mares and Jones2024). The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) decision in 2018 to regulate gene edited crops the same as transgenic crops has put these polarized positions in stark relief.
Gene editing refers to an approach to modifying an organism’s DNA by inactivating a gene, adding a gene, or removing a segment of DNA. This includes techniques called zinc fingers and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), but the most popular technique is CRISPR-CAS9. Although some celebrated the ECJ’s decision, many scientists and legal and ethics experts, including the European Commission (2021), called on the European Union to develop a new framework for evaluating crops generated with gene editing techniques (Zetterberg and Bjornberg, Reference Zetterberg and Bjornberg2017; Tagliabue and Ammann, Reference Tagliabue and Ammann2018).
As the arguments and counterarguments about changing the applicable legislation continue, some express concern that competing factions have become polarized and entrenched (Macnaghten and Habets, Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020; Shah et al., Reference Shah, Ludwig and Macnaghten2021). Macnaghten and Habets (Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020, p. 353) argue that ‘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’. Although their concerns are specifically about the EU, similar arguments and counterarguments have emerged in other countries, including the United States (US) (Selfa et al., Reference Selfa, Lindberg and Bain2021).
Some contend that biophysical scientists bear some responsibility for the polarized positions. Fischer and Rock (Reference Fischer and Rock2023, p. 786), for example, argue that ‘the dominant scientific narrative fails to account for how food technologies are shaped by political, economic and social factors, and how they are used by various stakeholders in society’ (Fischer and Rock, Reference Fischer and Rock2023, p. 786). They call on biophysical scientists to stop promoting a simplistic narrative and, instead, to work with ‘a broader group of actors, beyond molecular and plant sciences and economics…’ and to engage with social scientists, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and farm organizations (Fischer and Rock, Reference Fischer and Rock2023, p. 787).
Their argument is not without merit. Richard Roberts, who won a Nobel Prize in 1993, convinced 107 other Nobel Laureates to sign a public letter accusing Greenpeace and various green parties of a ‘crime against humanity’ for slowing the spread of genetic engineering technologies (Rice, Reference Rice2016). This is a polarizing assertion on its face. However, when he later laid out his argument in a journal article, even Roberts (Reference Roberts2018, p. 61) conceded that there are ‘many factors that lead to low agricultural production’, and he acknowledged some of the limitations that critics of genetic engineering technologies often highlight.
The goal of this paper is to evaluate whether competing positions on genetically engineered crops, especially gene editing, are as polarized and entrenched as often portrayed. I focus on one group engaged in this debate: German scientists who conduct research that has agricultural applications. After reviewing articles that describe competing perspectives on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, as well as recommendations for overcoming that polarization, I construct ideal typologies of techno-optimism and techno-pessimism to use in analyzing the assertions made by the scientists. I also evaluate whether those techno-optimists and techno-pessimists maintain positions that are so entrenched or ideological that they refuse to consider competing perspectives. I conclude by considering whether the findings from my analysis point to opportunities to overcome polarization.
Polarized positions
Concerns about entrenched and polarized positions are not new. Two decades ago, Buttel (Reference Buttel2005) and Brush (Reference Brush2001) argued that, despite some legitimate socioeconomic and environmental concerns, new plant breeding technologies (transgenics in their case) offer potential benefits and that focusing only on the potential harm might prevent the formation of alliances with agricultural scientists necessary to find beneficial applications. More recently, social scientists have acknowledged the potential benefits of gene editing techniques, but they also claim that those potential benefits are contingent on the socioeconomic dimensions of scientific and technological developments (Montenegro, Reference Montenegro2015; Kuzma, Reference Kuzma2018; Pixley et al., Reference Pixley, Falck-Zepeda, Giller, Glenna, Gould, Mallory-Smith, Stelly and Stewart2019; Rock and Schurman, Reference Rock and Schurman2020; Montenegro de Wit, Reference Montenegro de Wit2022; Dowd-Uribe, Reference Dowd-Uribe2023; Glenna, Reference Glenna2023; Rock et al., Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Ely, Glover, Stone and Fischer2023a, Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Glover, Stone, Ely and Fischer2023b; Dowd-Uribe et al., Reference Dowd-Uribe, Blundo-Canto, Glover, Louafi, Shilomboleni, Rock, Kikulwe, Fischer and Joly2024). This is why some scholars call upon biophysical scientists to abandon the simplistic narrative (Fischer and Rock, Reference Fischer and Rock2023, p. 787).
Although it might be helpful to those seeking to bridge entrenched positions if biophysical scientists were less technologically deterministic, Fischer and Rock’s (Reference Fischer and Rock2023) critique is one-sided. Moreover, in another paper, Rock et al. (Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Ely, Glover, Stone and Fischer2023a, pp. 2–3) describe the proponents of new breeding technologies as having a ‘techno-optimist assessment’, as being driven by an ‘ideology of innovation’, and as seeking ‘to circumvent discussing stickier social and regulatory issues’. These assertions are not necessarily inaccurate, but Rock et al. (Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Ely, Glover, Stone and Fischer2023a) do not apply the same critique to opponents of the new technologies, a group that might be labeled techno-pessimists. Because Königs (Reference Königs2022) and Danaher (Reference Danaher2022) describe techno-optimism with techno-pessimism as opposing ends of a spectrum, it seems reasonable to explore both ends of that spectrum.
Techno-optimism is generally defined as the belief that good prevails over bad and ‘that technology will make the world a much better place’ (Königs, Reference Königs2022, p. 2). Königs (Reference Königs2022, p. 3) offers two scenarios to illustrate a techno-optimistic perspective. The first is ‘We can be certain that the net impact of some technology is positive. There is no significant risk of it having a net negative impact’. The second is ‘There is a high probability of some technology having a significant net positive impact, and only a small probability of it having a negligible net negative impact’. Techno-optimists are therefore likely to advocate for accelerating applications and for reducing barriers to the rollout of the new technologies.
By contrast, techno-pessimism is a belief that ‘bad prevails over good’ and that a technology and the purveyors of the technology enable situations where ‘badness ‘gains ascendancy or dominance’ over the good…’ (Danaher, Reference Danaher2022, p. 3). Königs (Reference Königs2022, p. 3) offers a scenario to illustrate techno-pessimism: ‘There is a high (say, ~ 80%) probability of some technology having a net positive impact, and a relatively small but significant (~ 20%) probability of it resulting in the extinction of humankind. This impact/probability distribution is unfavourable’. This scenario seems to set up an asymmetric relationship between techno-optimism and techno-pessimism because a mere 20% chance of a negative outcome (even if it were not as extreme as humanity’s extinction) leaves little room for error. Königs (Reference Königs2022) contends that this is the case because a 20% chance of catastrophe introduces too much risk to be optimistic. Because of the possibility for unintended consequences and social disruptions from new technologies, Danaher (Reference Danaher2022, p. 2) contends that
much of the academic debate about the impacts of technology on society has a pessimistic angle to it, highlighting the ethical harms and unanticipated effects of technology on the environment, social norms and personal wellbeing. Indeed, many academics see techno-optimism as irrational and superstitious….
Macnaghten and Habets (Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020) do not use the term techno-pessimism, but they capture its essence when they describe some NGOs as having the position that new technologies are the source of many of our environmental and social problems today and that introducing new technologies will only exacerbate the problems.
After reviewing articles seeking to categorize the opposing perspectives on genetic engineering (Herring, Reference Herring2008; Roberts, Reference Roberts2018; Tagliabue and Ammann, Reference Tagliabue and Ammann2018; Bain et al., Reference Bain, Lindberg and Selfa2020; Macnaghten and Habets, Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020; Siebert et al., Reference Siebert, Herzig and Birringer2022; Fischer and Rock, Reference Fischer and Rock2023; Lindberg et al., Reference Lindberg, Bain and Selfa2023; Rock et al., Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Ely, Glover, Stone and Fischer2023a; Isbell et al., Reference Isbell, Tobin, Mares and Jones2024), I developed a table to capture the competing arguments as ideal types (Table 1). What is striking about the perspectives on both the optimistic and pessimistic sides is how they focus very little on the efficacy of the technologies themselves. Rather, both emphasize positive or negative social or economic outcomes. Therefore, at the heart of this debate there are implicit theories about how the world works. This suggests that Fischer and Rock’s (Reference Fischer and Rock2023) call for biophysical scientists to engage with social scientists is reasonable.
Techno-optimistic and techno-pessimistic perspectives on gene editing
Table 1. Long description
The table has two columns. The left column is labeled Techno-optimistic and the right column is labeled Techno-pessimistic. Row one compares gene editing as cheaper, faster, more versatile, and more precise than previous breeding technologies versus proponents failing to consider the complexities of social and ecological systems. Row two contrasts promoting resilient agriculture in the face of climate change with delaying holistic efforts to promote ecologically and socially responsible agricultural systems. Row three presents promoting food security for growing populations versus perpetuating an industrial agricultural system that has caused economic and environmental problems. Row four lists providing agronomic innovations for small- and medium-sized companies against enhancing domination by large corporations. Row five contrasts providing agronomic innovations for poor, smallholder farmers with facilitating corporate concentration, which harms small- and medium-sized farmers. Row six compares providing nutritional benefits for consumers with risks and harms being inevitable with new technologies. Row seven contrasts saving food-insecure communities in developing nations by increasing yields with smallholders in developing countries emphasizing color, taste, and storability, not just maximizing yields.
Because Rock et al. (Reference Rock, Schnurr, Kingiri, Ely, Glover, Stone and Fischer2023a) introduce the claim that some techno-optimists are also ideological and because Macnaghten and Habets (Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020) talk about entrenched positions, it is also necessary to explore how to operationalize the concepts of being entrenched and ideological. One way to do that is to distinguish between an ideology and a theory. Neuman (Reference Neuman2003) claims that an ideology resembles a theory because it offers a system of assumptions and explanations about how the world works. However, ideologies are different from theories to the extent that they are fixed and resistant to empirical evidence. By contrast, theories are open to modification when evidence warrants it. The point here is to explore whether competing perspectives are entrenched and ideological, and one way to do that is to explore whether proponents of competing perspectives are open to alternative perspectives and evidence.
This leads to two research questions. The first is whether perspectives expressed by German scientists can be categorized as techno-optimistic or techno-pessimistic. And the second is whether these scientists are so entrenched in their perspectives that they could be labeled ideological.
A note on terminology
Although policy makers continue to use the genetically modified organism (GMO) label, Tagliabue and Ammann (Reference Tagliabue and Ammann2018, p. 46) claim that it is a ‘scientifically nonsensical’ term. Plant scientists and crop breeders tend to distinguish between three kinds of plant-transformation activities: cross-breeding, mutation breeding, and transgenic breeding (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wang, Zhang, Zhang and Gao2019). Cross-breeding involves crossing different plant varieties with the goal of getting a desirable trait from one variety to express itself in another. Mutagenesis involves the use of chemicals or radiation to generate random mutations in plants. Breeders then try to cross the mutants with other plants to facilitate the expression of desired mutations and to eliminate unwanted mutations. This approach allows for substantially greater trait variability than cross-breeding alone. It was first applied in the 1930s and became common after the Second World War. Finally, transgenic breeding involves using a ballistic device or a plant pest, such as bacterium, to insert exogenous genetic material into a plant to get it to express a desired trait (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wang, Zhang, Zhang and Gao2019).
It is important to understand that plant breeders and other scientists tend to think of gene editing as mutation breeding, not transgenic breeding, because most gene editing techniques do not leave exogenous genetic material in the plant (Tagliabue and Ammann, Reference Tagliabue and Ammann2018). There are some cases where gene editing relies on transgenic breeding, but in many cases gene edited plants cannot be distinguished from conventionally bred plants. These distinctions are important because the ECJ’s ruling on gene edited crops is premised on the use of imprecise language. The ECJ summarized its decision in a brief statement:
In today’s judgment, the Court of Justice takes the view, first of all, that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive, in so far as the techniques and methods of mutagenesis alter the genetic material of an organism in a way that does not occur naturally. It follows that those organisms come, in principle, within the scope of the GMO Directive and are subject to the obligations laid down by that directive. The Court states, however, that it is apparent from the GMO Directive that it does not apply to organisms obtained by means of certain mutagenesis techniques, namely those which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record (bold in original) (Court of Justine, 2018, n.p.).
The EU defines GMOs to include products from both mutagenesis and transgenic breeding, unlike many other countries. For example, the US treats only the products of transgenic breeding as GMOs (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2016). Because the EU claims that both transgenic and mutagenic breeding produce GMOs, the EU regulators must come up with a justification for treating gene editing as different from radiation or chemical mutagenesis. They do this by claiming that chemical and radiation mutagenesis have ‘a long safety record’.
For this paper, I follow the lead of the National Academies of Science’s (2016) report, which defines genetic engineering as referring to the direct human manipulation of a plant’s genome. However, because GMO was used by the ECJ and because it is commonly used to refer to many types of plant manipulations, many of the scientists I interviewed used GMO to refer to various plant-transformation technologies. I do not change their words when quoting them.
Research methods and analysis
I gathered data for this paper by interviewing 10 scientists who are engaged in plant science research at German research institutions and universities. To generate the list of potential interviewees, I used a link-tracing, non-probability, purposive sampling method. This consisted of two strategies. First, I gathered a list of 33 German scientists who, in response to the ECJ ruling, signed an open letter titled ‘Regulating Genome Edited Organisms as GMOs has Negative Consequences for Agriculture, Society and Economy’, which urged their national governments and the EU government to change policies to enable the applications of gene editing (Max Planck Institute, 2019). Scientists from many EU nations signed the letter, but I focused only on the German scientists because I had limited time and resources to conduct my study. I chose Germany because it is the most populous nation in the EU and, with a research and development budget more than twice that of France in 2022, it has the highest research and development budget in the EU.Footnote 1 Therefore, German scientists’ perspectives on gene editing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on EU policy.
Second, when I began interviewing the scientists, I asked them if they could recommend other scientists for me to interview, especially scientists who disagreed with them. The scientists often made recommendations of other people already on my list. However, I did receive the names of four critics of gene editing. Combining my original list of 33 scientists with the additional names, I ended my search with a list of 37 names.
By reviewing the websites of the 37 scientists, I discovered that they were all full professors at universities or research institutes affiliated with universities. Judging from their curriculum vitae and their lists of publications and prominent research grants, I concluded that they were all very accomplished and established in their fields. For the 10 I interviewed, I did not ask their age, but I discovered that they all received their doctorates or published their first articles between 1988 and 1997. It seems safe to conclude from this information that they were all in their mid-fifties or older when I interviewed them. This is consistent with the age structure of German scientists more generally. The German Federal Statistical Office reports that there were 43,078 professors under the age of 65 in Germany in 2023 and that 44% of them will reach the age of 65 by 2033.Footnote 2 This indicates that just under half of German scientists are in their late fifties and early sixties.
I cannot deny that there is a likely bias in my sample. The fact that the 33 signatures on the letter are full professors suggests that only the most established professors were willing to sign their names to a letter that might be considered controversial by the German public. However, when comparing the scientists who agreed to be interviewed to the scientists who did not agree to be interviewed, I do not see any clear biases. Of the 37 scientists I contacted, 22 never responded. Of the 15 who responded, 10 agreed to be interviewed. Four of the remaining five said that they were too busy to be interviewed. One initially agreed to be interviewed, but he then stopped responding when I suggested times for an interview. Of the 37 I contacted, eight were women, but only one of the 10 who agreed to be interviewed was a woman. Although this is an underrepresentation, it is not so stark when the demographics of German scientists are considered. According to the German Federal Statistical Office, only 29.4% of women are engaged in research and development in Germany, a figure that is very low when compared to other European nations.Footnote 3 Only 4 of the 33 scientists who signed the open letter were women (12.1%). The 37 scientists on my list were mostly older, white, men with impressive academic achievements, and the same can be said of the 10 scientists I interviewed.
Following approval from my university’s institutional review board, I conducted the 10 interviews in English over Zoom between November 2021 and April 2022.Footnote 4 Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. After the interviews, I wrote field notes to capture my impression of the discussion topics, major insights, and surprises that emerged during the interviews. To record and transcribe the interviews, I used the Zoom recording and transcription functions. The first drafts of the Zoom transcriptions were rough. However, by reading the transcripts while listening to the interviews, I produced accurate transcripts of the interviews.
I took a phenomenological approach to the interviews, which Creswell (Reference Creswell2007, p. 60) describes as appropriate when the goal of the research is ‘to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon … in order to develop practices or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon’. This fits with my research goal because I seek to understand how scientists think about gene editing in broader social, economic, and political contexts. Some might question whether 10 interviews are enough; however, research indicates that high-quality phenomenological studies often include 8 to 10 interviews (Creswell, Reference Creswell2007; Bartholomew et al., Reference Bartholomew, Joy, Kang and Brown2021). Furthermore, Hennink and Kaiser (Reference Hennink and Kaiser2022) conducted a systematic review of qualitative research and found that saturation was often reached with between nine and 17 interviews. That said, I recognize that this is not a large, random sample that would allow me to generalize to all scientists. However, I am confident that I have captured a range of perspectives shared by established German research scientists who are engaged in efforts to shape EU policies governing gene editing.
Because I respected the time constraints that these scientists face, I did not ask them to read over transcripts from their interviews (member checking) or to give me additional feedback on my interpretations of their comments. However, I promised to send them any publications that emerged from the research. Since then, I have published one article. I sent all of them a PDF of the article, and they all responded with gratitude.
When incorporating direct quotations from the transcripts into this paper, I lightly edited their words to facilitate the conversational flow. Most qualitative researchers strive to use verbatim quotations, but it is also common practice ‘to take out the ‘ums’ and ‘ers,’ phrases such as ‘I mean’ and ‘you know,’ and the word repetitions which pepper most people’s speech’ (Corden and Sainsbury, Reference Corden and Sainsbury2006, p. 18). Such repetition and filler words were common in my interviews because I was asking Germans to give their answers in English. Therefore, to make it easier to follow the quotations in this paper, I deleted any repeats of ‘this is, this is’, ‘you know, you know’, and other such phrases and inserted an ellipsis. I also inserted an ellipsis when connecting two sentences that are separated by meandering or redundant comments. However, I consistently sought to portray scientists’ thoughts in their own words.
I began the interviews with the same assertion: ‘Please explain your position on the European Court of Justice’s decision on new genomic techniques’. My next assertion was, ‘Please explain how the European Court of Justice’s decision on new genomic techniques affects your research’. After each response, I asked probing questions to explore their openness to counter-perspectives. For example, for the scientists who opposed the ECJ ruling, I asked, ‘Are you concerned about any potential unintended consequences from new genomic techniques?’ Based on their answers, I would ask whether they were concerned about specific techniques or crops. For those who supported the ECJ ruling, I asked, ‘Are you aware of any specific problems that Germany or the EU face right now that could only be solved with new genomic techniques?’ I also used statements from Table 1 to encourage the respondents to engage with competing perspectives.
When analyzing the transcripts, I mainly used a deductive approach by evaluating their responses according to the ideal types of techno-optimistic and techno-pessimistic perspectives listed in Table 1. I also used the ideal types to evaluate how ideological/entrenched they were. If a scientist provided mostly techno-optimistic perspectives, I would ask what they thought about the techno-pessimistic perspectives and vice versa. If someone rejected the competing perspective without even considering it, I concluded that they were entrenched or ideological. If they conceded that the other perspective was reasonable, even if they ultimately argued against it, I coded them as not being ideological or entrenched.
Analysis
Eight of the scientists I interviewed had signed an open letter that includes this paragraph:
Organisms that have undergone simple and targeted genome edits by means of precision breeding and which do not contain foreign genes are at least as safe as if they were derived from classical breeding techniques. Therefore, we call upon all European authorities to quickly respond to this ruling and alter the legislation such that organisms containing such edits are not subject to the provisions of the GMO Directive but instead fall under the regulatory regime that applies to classically bred varieties. In the longer term, the GMO Directive should be thoroughly revised to correctly reflect scientific progress in biotechnology (Max Planck Institute, 2019).
It is reasonable to characterize anyone who signed this statement as techno-optimistic because there is a clear assumption that gene editing offers more benefits and presents fewer risks than conventional breeding techniques, such as radiation or chemical mutagenesis. However, I offer additional quotations from these eight scientists to make their perspectives clearer.
Techno-optimism
The eight techno-optimistic scientists often referenced the positive outcomes listed in Table 1 during the interviews, including providing food needs for a growing population, addressing challenges from climate change, providing benefits for small- and medium-sized companies, and offering food security for communities in developing nations.
Scientist #1 emphasized how he can modify canola much more quickly now than with previous breeding techniques.
We use this technology to knock out, I mean gene editing means making mutants…deleting genes…and that’s what we did. And this is a very complex technology. You can knock out several genes at a time….I mean it’s unbelievable. It’s much faster than any [other] kind of breeding. You can do stuff that otherwise would take 20 years, can do this in one year.
Scientist #2 also emphasized the speed. When compared to gene editing, he said this about conventional breeding: ‘It’s more tedious, so it’s definitely more man hours to, required, to…do this….at least twice as long…’. And Scientist #4 also emphasized speed, but he also claimed that they can now make far more complex changes at a lower cost.
In comparison to all, as a molecular scissors we had before, I mean you have to see that, when people start to make the scissors, it took them three quarters of a year to make one. It costs $30,000 or even more yet to pay for it. And then, in the end, it says, enzymes didn’t cut very efficiently. And so it was really a bit of burden. But this CRISPR CAS, you can do this over again, you can pay 20 bucks to get a new prime, which gives you a new guide so…the magic of this technology, and it cuts everywhere…. And this also gave me the opportunity to now address completely new questions. So in my lab we are now restructuring genomes. You’re not changing genes. We are changing chromosomes.
Scientist #8 also emphasized speed.
I’ve been collaborating with breeding companies since almost 25 years. And I learned… that the breeding process is a fairly long process, usually takes a decade or longer even to invent a new variety on the market because, because everything takes time and you have generation cycles, everything, every cross takes, takes one year, etc, etc. So, it’s a time-consuming process. And what the, what the companies need, would like to have, is speed of the breeding process.
Speaking more directly about the ability to solve problems, Scientist #5 described how gene editing can contribute to sustainable agronomic innovations.
For example, research that is directed at protecting plants from infections in the field. Doing more sustainable agriculture. Making use of modern genome engineering, because these tools are simply not available, I mean you could potentially make potatoes that are resistant to phytophthora. Make wine, grape wine that is more resistant to fungal infection. That all is not happening because it’s not permitted.
He went on to explain that this research might still get done, but that wine grape research will be done in California and Australia, not in Europe, because of the ECJ decision.
Scientist #6 described the research in his laboratory that can contribute to resilience in the face of climate change. ‘We are working on drought resistance…due to climate change, and we are developing crops…can make a difference…’ He explained that this is attractive to graduate students until they discover that ‘there is this quite substantial burden in translating your results into the practice’ because of the ECJ decision. And he explained that students then seek to go to countries where they can use gene editing to solve these problems.
Scientist #10 argued that, in the case of most approaches to gene editing, the risks are lower than for other kinds of mutation breeding.
The simple forms of genome editing where you make very small simple changes, and again, provided that…introduced genetic material is removed. I find it very difficult to make the claim that this is different from spontaneous mutation.
He acknowledged that some gene editing is transgenic, and some gene editing involves multiple mutations, but most approaches are less risky than radiation or chemical mutagenesis.
Techno-pessimism
Two of the scientists I interviewed asserted that the ECJ ruled correctly because gene editing would undermine efforts to promote ecologically and socially responsible agriculture, there is a poor understanding of the ecological risks, and there is a lack of understanding of social and ecological complexities. These are concerns that fit in the techno-pessimist column in Table 1.
Scientist #7 stated, ‘I am not convinced that these techniques’ will deliver on their promises. He compared it to ‘what was promised when the first generation of GMOs [were] coming up. I could not see that any of these, not many of these promises had been kept’. He later came back to this point: ‘I’m old enough to have heard….nearly the same argument when we talk about GM…. You have a tendency not to believe what, what has been there, so I would say, wait and see’. He then made the claim listed in Table 1 about how gene editing simply perpetuates a problematic agricultural system: ‘Is this just something which will help…the old agriculture techniques to survive?’ He explained that there are two approaches. One is to help the old agriculture to survive, something he called a ‘kind of industrial agricultural approach’. The other is to take an ‘approach [that] might be…holistic or systematic’. He then conceded that ‘These [gene editing] techniques will never be…holistic approaches, but still, they can, out of this holistic approach, you can take some specific techniques into it’. This indicated that he was not ideological or entrenched in his position.
Another concern that Scientist #7 raised is that tweaking genes in existing crops means that ‘you’re getting narrower and narrower in your gene pool’. He used wheat breeding as an example. He explained that, when facing problems, many breeders have been
trying to get something from the wild into that and then…you get some something more, something new in there….You have new things new, new genes, new alleles… introduced into the process that you would have not if you always stay within the gene pool….You have really the problem that, that, you’re getting narrower and narrower in your gene pool.
I was able to present this argument to techno Scientists #8 and #10, and I will discuss their response in the section on ideology and entrenchment.
Scientist #9 echoed many of the assertions made by Scientist #7, but she also offered more expansive critiques. When asked what she thinks about those who say that gene editing is a form of mutagenesis, she said,
You can call it that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not genetic engineering…. They are causing a mutation, a targeted mutation. That’s correct. That’s biologically and technologically correct. No problem…But…That is what they think and then that is the same for genetic engineers in the old way. And that’s the problem. Now let me give you an example.
As an example, she described making clones of a plant and then planting four of these identical plants in identical pots of soil and keeping them in the same room. She then described putting one outside, giving one more sunlight, and giving one more fertilizer: ‘They will look different, although they are genetically identical, right? That’s normal. This is how biological organisms react to the environment’. Her point here is that proponents of gene editing might be more precise, but those plants may still be unpredictable in different environments.
A lot of things react to their environment…. If you have a gene that produces a certain, that codes for certain chemical or certain protein, and you put this protein in a new environment, this protein will behave the same or not.
She explained that ‘in the moment that something comes into the cell that is not original to the cell, there will be alterations. And we call these epigenetic alterations’. This argument is consistent with at least two techno-pessimist assertions listed in Table 1.
Scientists #7 and #9 also agreed that one of the biggest risks of gene editing is that people will begin to think that they no longer need some of the older breeding techniques, such as cross-breeding. Scientist #9 stated it succinctly: ‘I’m a geneticist and, population geneticist, and without the crossbreeding we won’t make progress’. Although this claim did not come up in my preliminary categorization of techno-pessimistic arguments (Table 1), it should be added to future efforts to list techno-pessimistic perspectives.
Entrenched and ideological
Two techno-optimists might be described as having entrenched positions because, when I listed some of the concerns from Table 1, they were mostly dismissive. Scientist #1 stated,
Okay it’s a new technology, I mean we have tested it in our lab…. With other labs, who are much more…experienced and have created or know dozens of different plants already, I have not heard of any problems so far…. I have not heard of any problem.
Scientist #4 was also dismissive of concerns. He described an expert panel he served on in the German government and that this panel spent two years evaluating the technology. ‘And everybody agreed, of the experts, that we don’t see any specific risk’ that is different from other types of breeding. ‘The Ministry of Agriculture has a lot of research institutes funded by this Ministry. And all these research institutes also say that says technologies are, of course, without any further risk’ when compared to conventional mutagenesis.
Scientist #5 offered the most adamant perspective. ‘I simply cannot understand the concerns, and I don’t see any unintended consequences that would not happen with a traditional genetics approach’. He said later, ‘it’s doing it better than the existing technology that is permitted, so it’s simply irrational’. He then compared gene editing to transgenics and said,
There is at least a scientific reason for regulating [transgenics] differently, because we are here, we’re talking about stuff that cannot be achieved by mutagenesis or by crossing…so it’s simply a different process right and, yeah, I can understand why this process would be differently regulated.
He expressed frustration because ‘A scientific argument doesn’t get you anywhere, because it is, it’s about fundamental opposition and not about finding a solution or like a constructive discussion’. He also conceded that there could be problems with using gene drives in agriculture, which would involve promoting the spread of genetic variants in environments where those characteristics have never been introduced. However, he insisted that basic gene editing is different from gene drives.
Comparing gene editing to other breeding techniques was a consistent theme for all 10 of the scientists I interviewed, including the techno-pessimists. And it is important to acknowledge that expert scientific panels, including the US National Academy of Sciences (2016), have concluded that most gene editing introduces fewer risks of unintended mutations than radiation or chemical mutagenesis. However, that expert panel still conceded that some risks are possible.
Although five other techno-optimists downplayed the risks of gene editing, they still acknowledged that some concern is warranted. Scientist #3 is a good example.
You always have to compare that to potential breeding. And if you use mutation breeding, it’s like a shotgun. Now, so you look for the phenotype, and you do not know what happens inside the genome. So, with us, and CRISPR, versus [other kinds of mutation breeding], is more targeted also there might…. But when you know that technology, and we know that technology, then you know also how to analyze a potential risk, so it’s not riskier than any other breeding.
Like the others, he focused on comparing it to the other techniques. He went on to describe the gene sequencing technologies that scientists now use to monitor for unexpected mutations. However, he concluded his statement by acknowledging that ‘You have to consider the risk’. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this scientist is not as entrenched as Scientists #1 and #5.
Scientist #6 also presented as a strong techno-optimist, but he acknowledged that risks could occur. When asked about the ECJ decision to allow radiation and chemical mutagenesis, but not gene editing, he stated ‘So my response to that would be it’s, it’s complete nonsense….So that’s when I’m having a real problem with the discussion [on the] judgment’. When asked about the risks, he said, ‘Whenever we do something we need to be aware of it, right? I don’t think…, it’s a higher risk than, than what we’ve been living with all the time, so, so I don’t have, I don’t expect an increased risk’.
Scientist #6’s perspective was also interesting because he blamed Monsanto and transgenic breeding for people’s skepticism about gene editing.
But I think what, what Monsanto did early on…[with] genetic engineering, because we didn’t have anything better at hand at that point, you know, to have really strong pesticides that can be then tolerated. That’s not the best kind of showcase for genomic, you know, genome editing and genetic engineering.
He offered the hypothetical of what might have been different if Monsanto had instead sought:
to use genetic engineering, to put in receptors so that pathogens that were, you know, compatible with a lot of damage in a certain crop would be fended off by the plant itself without the need for any pesticides. Right? And if we had that, we could dramatically reduce our pesticide output. It would be good for the bees, would be good for the birds, and everything. Right?
Another reason for not calling Scientist #6 an ideologue is that he offered a thorough discussion on how policies are needed to promote the public good. He advocated for policies that looked at agricultural crops and practices more broadly. He speculated on the need for a policy that would promote ‘a substantial reduction of harmful pesticides’. Then a genome-edited crop might appear better than a conventionally produced crop. ‘I think that would be fantastic, right? But it needs a very, very different regulatory scheme, and not just safety for people to eat…, but it would be safety in a more realistic context’.
Under his regulatory scheme, policies would support crops that promote the public good, rather than just private profits. Research
so far has been largely driven, you know, to enhance private profits….And that’s something that I’m very skeptical and critical, honestly, of, because it was not for the public good, and not for the environment….And I think we need to have a much stronger regulation there and then.
We then discussed how Monsanto is now producing dicamba-resistant crops and how dicamba is hard to manage. ‘Exactly in those cases, we should, we should not be allowed’. He therefore recommended establishing
a national Ethics Commission that decides, hey, this is a project that would be in the public interest in that people from academia from small companies, but also from large corporations, you know, submit ideas to. Right? And then that could be, there could be funds, generous funds for projects, crops that are deemed to be in the public interest.
This scientist’s recommendation is even broader than what Fischer and Rock (Reference Fischer and Rock2023) are requesting of biophysical scientists.
Reflective: not ideological or entrenched
Although there was consensus among the 10 scientists that gene editing presents fewer risks than chemical or radiation mutagenesis, even most of the techno-optimists readily acknowledged that some unwanted social or ecological outcomes are possible from gene editing. For example, Scientist #2 said, ‘I would consider myself as more critical…in the scientific community. At least the people I know’. He said this because he acknowledged that, with gene editing, ‘there could also be a spontaneous mutation’ and that, therefore, regulatory testing is needed to monitor these potential outcomes.
Something that the techno-optimists and techno-pessimists agreed on was that unintended outcomes were possible in all forms of breeding. Scientist #9, a techno-pessimist, recounted the story of how the first iteration of rapeseed/canola, created through mutation breeding, was toxic to hares and deer in Germany and Austria. She referenced a study by Schmid and Schmid (Reference Schmid and Schmid1992). Breeders eventually developed a variety that was not toxic, but the point, according to Scientist #9, was that it was ‘a true accident [that] happened in conventional breeding’. And Scientist #10, a techno-optimist, explained how zucchini can become toxic to humans if back mutations emerge. He referenced a story in a German newspaper about a man who died after eating zucchini from his garden.Footnote 5 The point that both the techno-optimist and techno-pessimist were making is that, if regulators truly wanted to reduce risks, they would include all crops in some form of review process.
As I mentioned earlier, the two techno-pessimists argued that gene editing is problematic because it is reductionistic, an argument consistent with the claim that it will not lead to more ecologically and sociologically responsible agricultural systems (Table 1). Scientist #7, for example, argued that gene editing promises to reduce biodiversity because it involves the manipulation of an existing gene pool. Because I had interviewed Scientist #7 before interviewing Scientists #8 and #10, I asked them about this criticism. They both became reflective. Scientist #8 replied, ‘Actually, I never thought about that, but it sounds very, very convincing. Yes, yes, it’s, I mean it’s always the struggle…It’s always the balance….There is some truth in the argument’. However, he then pointed to a paper in Nature Biotechnology (Li et al., Reference Li, Yang, Yu, Xiaomin, Zhang, Dong, Gao and Xu2018) that describes a group of scientists who converted a wild tomato into a modern, edible tomato with just seven directed mutations.
There’s a series of examples where the variability to risk for individual crops to respond to pathogens, etc., is being pushed out of the breeding pool accidentally because there was no selection on that, and now it’s out of the breeding pool, and you have to bring it back into the, to the breeding pool.
He explained that this meant that using gene editing could enhance biodiversity because gene editing could be used to introduce wild varieties into the existing agricultural system. Scientist #10 also confessed, ‘That’s something I hadn’t thought about…yeah, I think it’s a valid point. But, as I said, I think there’s also a ton of opportunity to actually rescue…older varieties that are not…that fit’. He explained how gene editing could be used to reintroduce older varieties, thus expanding the number of varieties in use.
Despite their reservations about gene editing and their support for the ECJ ruling, Scientists #7 and #9 both expressed concerns that the ECJ ruling had gone too far. For example, they recognized a difference between gene editing that turns off a plant function and gene editing that adds function. Scientist #9 explained, ‘Turning off a single gene, that I consider much less problematic. But adding new functions into an environment? That we basically do not understand. And we do not understand genetics. If you read some of the works on epigenetics….Yes, it is incredible, it’s beautiful, but it also should make us more respectful of nature’. When I asked why the distinction between turning function on and turning function off is important, she stated, ‘The answer is actually rather simple: If you add a function, this can spread to other organisms with unintended effects. If you knock out a function, the worst that can happen is restoration to the wild type’.
Although Scientist #9 expressed oncerns about gene editing, she also expressed concerns about how an organic scientist, Urs Niggli, the president of the Institute of Agroecology, was pilloried for stating in an interview with a German newspaper that organic producers should consider using some kinds of gene editing. In the interview, Niggli noted that many crops currently grown in organic systems are the offspring of mutagenic breeding and that gene editing is just another, more precise, version of mutagenesis (English, Reference English2022; Gross, Reference Gross2022). Scientist #9 said that, after Niggli made his comments, ‘then came the headline, “The organic Pope is saying that CRISPR is good”’. Reflecting on this backlash, Scientist #9 explained that Greenpeace, organic advocates, and other NGOs will never acknowledge nuances.
And they say very clearly it is basically impossible to explain the difference…[between types of mutagenesis]…in a very detailed way to the common person….Therefore, rather than getting discredited for supporting gene technology, they say, we stay opposed to it….And this is one of the big problems we have.
Scientist #9 argued that Greenpeace’s unwillingness to engage with nuance undermines science literacy. She accused Greenpeace of being ideological.
Although they were techno-pessimists, Scientist #7’s and #9’s conceded that some gene editing could be allowed. Scientist #7 said that there is a wide range of techniques that get lumped into the category of gene editing, and he did not consider gene editing that knocks out functions to be as risky as others. Scientist #9 concurred: ‘I’m realistic enough that it will be very difficult to argue, if we just disable a gene, not add a new gene, and this makes that we don’t need to spray potatoes anymore against late blight or bananas against sigatoka or whatever other huge, big diseases that we have, then it will become darn difficult to argue against that’.
These comments demonstrate that the two scientists who generally supported the ECJ ruling were not ideologically techno-pessimists. They instead sought policies and practices that would prevent reductionism and reduce unintended outcomes or ‘true accidents’.
Social contexts of agricultural research and development
One common critique is to state that techno-optimists fail to consider the broader social and political contexts that shape research, development, and applications of new technologies. For example, this is Fischer and Rock’s (Reference Fischer and Rock2023) primary critique of biophysical scientists, and it is implicit in many of the claims in the techno-pessimistic column in Table 1. However, the techno-optimists and techno-pessimists I interviewed reflected an awareness of social contexts, especially by focusing on policies surrounding intellectual property and regulations.
Most notably, eight of the 10 scientists stated that the current intellectual property policies in agriculture have led to economic concentration among large corporations and limited access to innovations. Scientist #10 referred to the patenting of transgenic material as the ‘original sin’ because it had prevented ‘a broad set of breeders’, who otherwise ‘would have incorporated these technologies into … their material’. He explained, ‘If back then, the regulatory agencies [had] said … good for you, but you can’t have protection that is different from your breeders’ privilege’, and if that had happened, ‘so this whole narrative of … Monsanto, Pioneer … monopolizing the market, all that would not have worked’. His point is that negative social and economic impacts could be minimized if there were better policies governing the technologies. This was a common refrain and consistent with previous studies on the need for changes to intellectual property policies (Editorial, 2021; Glenna, Reference Glenna2023).
All 10 scientists stated that policy makers are responsible for making policies that would promote beneficial outcomes and reduce negative outcomes. Most expressed some hope that the German Green Party was becoming less ideologically opposed to gene editing. Scientist #5 mentioned that the Green Party holds important ministries in the 2022 German government. He normally would have considered this to be unfortunate because the Green Party has traditionally been resistant to technologies that he supports. Now, however, he referenced news stories that the Green Party is more divided on transgenics and gene editing than in the past (e.g., Foote, Reference Foote2020). ‘It’s like 25–75. It’s a small minority within the Green Party that is also pro GMOs or pro genome editing. This is the more progressive part of eco, eco-progressives…but eco-conservatives are the majority in the Green Party’. Nevertheless, he found hope for potential alliances with eco-progressives.
Others made similar comments and then explained that, although there was just a minority in the Green Party that was supportive of advanced breeding technologies, this was enough to prevent the party leaders from taking strong positions against gene editing. Scientist #1 said, the Green Party is now ‘split, maybe in a way. Previously, they were very much against any gene tech’. Now, they might be ‘reconsidering, and that’s good’. Scientist #6 agreed, saying, ‘But they are more open, more-future oriented nowadays. So, they could actually, substantially influence the discussion, because if they swing over, there would be much less opposition…on this front, I think’.
An openness to considering broader contexts is also evident in comments about the problematic policies that govern transgenic crop research and development. The scientists overwhelmingly shared the perspective that transgenic crops favored private interests over the public good. They expressed the need to focus on the public benefits and on the need to change regulatory frameworks to promote the wider use of beneficial technologies, in addition to changing intellectual property policies.
Most notably, several scientists discussed how large firms developed transgenic crops to enhance their profits, often to the detriment of the public interest. For example, Scientist #6 explained:
What Monsanto did early on to … do genetic engineering… in order to have … really strong pesticides that can be then tolerated, that’s not the best kind of showcase for … genome editing and genetic engineering. But it would be much more powerful…if we…could dramatically reduce pesticide output, it would be good for the bees, it would be good…for the birds, and everything. And I think those kinds of cases would be something … that also Germany would benefit …. So that’s something that is… totally possible, absolutely.
As I mentioned earlier, eight of the 10 scientists blamed intellectual property policies for the fact that transgenic breeding has been used to benefit large companies and large farmers and for being associated with economic concentration, a position supported by the National Academies of Science report (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2016). However, Scientist #5 also explained that the cumbersome regulations associated with the transgenic era created a situation where only the largest companies could afford to develop and distribute them:
The concentration movement in the agricultural sector is actually pushed by the regulatory hurdles, right? Because only the big ag will be able to overcome this hurdle…And smaller, more innovative companies won’t have a chance to enter the market because they simply can’t deal…with the regulatory burden.
This is a case where a techno-optimist turned the techno-pessimist critique back on itself (Table 1). His point was that advanced genetic breeding technologies do not inherently favor large corporations at the expense of small- and medium-sized companies and farmers. The policies governing these technologies matter.
Although the scientists recognized the need for regulatory oversight, they also recognized how difficult it would be to regulate gene edited crops because, as several of the scientists mentioned, there are currently no tests that can determine whether most crops had been gene edited. Scientist #8 explained that scientists and regulators ‘cannot distinguish between a mutation which was generated by classical mutagenesis or by nature, the holy nature,…or by CRISPR CAS’. This claim is consistent with claims made by other scientists (van der Berg et al., Reference van der Berg, Lianne, Battaglia and Kleter2021). Scientist #8 explained that this means that regulators will need to rely on the breeders who develop these gene edited crops to divulge the information. He and other scientists also noted that it would be harder for a breeder to protect a patented crop because it is harder to claim that a variety has been pirated when there is no genetic test to determine that it has been edited. Therefore, Scientist #8, and several others, noted that breeders would need to disclose their gene edited varieties and even insert a genetic marker if they wanted to prevent piracy.
Perhaps the boldest recommendation came from Scientist #6, who asserted that what is needed is an ethics panel that could determine that a crop should not be approved in cases where a company develops a crop that simply has no public benefit, such as dicamba-resistant crops. His proposal, which I briefly described earlier, is analogous to the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, which systematically evaluates potential sustainability, ethical, and social impacts, in addition to the environmental and health impacts (Macnaghten and Habets, Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020; Dassler et al., Reference Dassler, Myhr, Lalyer, Frieß, Spök, Liebert, Hagen, Engelhard and Giese2024). It also shares elements of the regulatory framework proposed by Gould et al. (Reference Gould, Amasino, Dominique Brossard, Dixon, Falck-Zepeda, Gallo, Giller, Glenna, Griffin, Magraw, Mallory-Smith, Pixley, Ransom, Stelly and Stewart2022).
There was general agreement among the techno-optimists and techno-pessimists that, with well-crafted policies based on scientifically informed decisions and developed to maximize social welfare, as opposed to company profits, gene editing could yield beneficial outcomes for society and the environment. Scientist #10 asserted, ‘so often the comments, that the concerns that are being raised, they have to do…with the legal framework. And that’s really the domain of…policy and politics’. His point is that it is the responsibility of policy makers to create the institutional context to promote the development and distribution of technologies needed to enhance social welfare, and he and the other scientists want to see policy makers act accordingly.
Conclusion
The dominant narrative on whether genetic engineering can contribute to sustainable or renewable agriculture is that positions have become polarized and entrenched. Contributing to that polarization, according to this narrative, are biophysical scientists who are so techno-optimistic and even ideological that they refuse to consider the broader social contexts that influence technology development and diffusion. I evaluated the validity of these claims by interviewing 10 prominent German scientists who conduct research with applications in agriculture. My analysis indicates that eight of the biophysical scientists I interviewed could reasonably be called techno-optimists and that two of those scientists could reasonably be called techno-pessimists. However, I found that only two of the 10 scientists were so entrenched in their positions that they were not willing to consider alternative perspectives. In fact, most of those scientists were open to considering concerns raised by others and even recommended policy changes and the development of public institutions to oversee the regulations and applications of these new technologies. Although findings from interviews with only 10 scientists cannot be generalized to all biophysical scientists, it is reasonable to conclude that claims about biophysical scientists being entrenched and ideological may be overstated.
All the techno-optimists presented positive scenarios that could emerge from gene editing, but most also acknowledged that unintended and undesirable social and ecological outcomes were possible. By contrast, the two techno-pessimists were most likely to agree with the list of expectations expressed by the critics of gene editing. However, even the techno-pessimists claimed that the ECJ ruling went too far, and they were willing to consider how, given the appropriate policies, gene editing could be used in a socially and ecologically positive way. And four of the techno-optimists offered concrete policy ideas and promising practices that could reduce the risks of unintended outcomes.
Macnaghten and Habets (Reference Macnaghten and Habets2020), Fischer and Rock (Reference Fischer and Rock2023), and Lindberg et al. (Reference Lindberg, Bain and Selfa2023) are certainly accurate when they highlight the polarized positions expressed in news stories, public statements, and other documents. However, my analysis indicates that some of the same scientists who signed letters in support of a polarizing perspective are less than ideological when having a conversation about how that technology can and should be used. Whether techno-optimists or techno-pessimists, they were open to policy changes that would promote social welfare outcomes and reduce potential ecological harms. Therefore, looking only at public statements and commentaries might not be the best way to determine whether scientists are polarized and entrenched or ideological.
Although my findings emerge from a small, non-random sample of scientists, it is a sample of scientists who are engaged in policy discussions in Germany and the EU. These scientists tend to consider current intellectual property policies as an impediment to innovation and social welfare. They tend to consider all plant breeding approaches as having the potential to introduce benefits and risks, and they expect policy makers to be consistent in establishing regulatory testing to limit those risks and to enhance the benefits, rather than creating policies that effectively ban the technologies. Furthermore, several recognized the need to establish policies and practices for gene editing that would enhance biodiversity and promote systems thinking. Some of these scientists recognized the need for public engagement and the need for regulators to consider the broad social, economic, and ecological impacts of technologies.
There is no agreed-upon way to facilitate scientist engagement on pressing societal challenges (Calice et al., Reference Calice, Bao, Beets, Brossard, Scheufele, Feinstein, Heiser, Tangen and Handelsman2023). However, it is possible to envision using workshops, special conferences, and policy forums directed at developing policies, administrative boards, and best practices directed at maximizing benefits and reducing harm. A stakeholder workshop that invited Dutch plant breeders to envision scenarios for policy alternatives offers a starting point (van der Berg et al., Reference van der Berg, Lianne, Battaglia and Kleter2021). That model could be expanded to include more techno-pessimists. Those who seek alliances with agricultural scientists to enhance social welfare could use such a model to create opportunities for intensive conversations focused on bridging what at first may seem like entrenched positions.
Open access
