An official website of the United States government
This article explores the new developments and challenges of agricultural Gene Editing (GED) regulation in primarily nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. As Gene Editing technology develops, Latin America and the Caribbean regulatory regimes struggle to keep pace. Developers and regulators face challenges such as consumer perceptions, intellectual property, R&D funding (private and public), training, environmental and social impact, and access to domestic and international markets. Some Latin America and the Caribbean countries (e.g., Argentina) interpret existing legislation to promulgate regulations for biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), while others (e.g., Brazil and Honduras) have specific legislation for Genetically Modified Organisms. In both those cases, often a case-by-case approach is chosen to determine whether a Gene Editing organism is subject to Genetically Modified Organisms regulations or not. Other countries such as Peru have opted to ban the technology due to its perceived resemblance to transgenic Genetically Modified Organisms. After presenting the regulatory landscape for agricultural Gene Editing in Latin America and the Caribbean, this article addresses some of the differences and similarities across the region. Some countries have had more foresight and have dedicated resources to increase capacity and develop regulations (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico before 2018) while others struggle with bureaucratic limitations and partisanship of policymaking (e.g., Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico after 2018). We propose that the differences and similarities between these regulatory regimes have emerged in part as a result of policy entrepreneurs (influential individuals actively involved in policy making) taking advantage of policy windows (opportunities for shaping policy and regulation). The third and remaining sections of this study discuss our main findings. Based on 41 semi structured interviews with regulators, scientists, product developers, NGOs and activists, we arrived at three main findings. First, there seems to be a consensus among most regulators interviewed that having harmonized regimes is a positive step to facilitate product development and deployment, leading to commercialization. Second, reducing bureaucracy (e.g., paper work) and increasing flexibility in regulation go hand in hand to expedite the acquisition of key lab materials required by developers in countries with less robust regimes such as Peru and Bolivia. Finally, developing public and private partnerships, fostering transparency, and increasing the involvement of marginalized groups may increase the legitimacy of Gene Editing regulation.
more »
« less
Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture: A comparative content analysis of mass media in the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada
Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture reflect and shape culturally particular understandings of what role technology should play in an ideal agrifood future. This study employs a comparative media content analysis to identify sociotechnical imaginaries of agricultural gene editing and the actors who perform them in five countries with contrasting regulatory and cultural contexts: Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. We find that news media in these countries reinforce a predominantly positive portrayal of the technology’s future, although variations in which imaginaries are most mobilized exist based on the regulatory status of gene editing and unique histories of civil society engagement around biotechnology in each country. We argue that by granting legitimacy to some narratives over others, the media supports gene editing as a desirable and necessary component of future agrifood systems, thereby limiting consideration of broader issues related to the technology’s development and application.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2020999
- PAR ID:
- 10553649
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Public Understanding of Science
- ISSN:
- 0963-6625
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Patent applications provide insight into how inventors imagine and legitimize uses of their imagined technologies; as part of this imagining they envision social worlds and produce sociotechnical imaginaries. Examining sociotechnical imaginaries is important for emerging technologies in high-stakes contexts such as the case of emotion AI to address mental health care. We analyzed emotion AI patent applications (N=58) filed in the U.S. concerned with monitoring and detecting emotions and/or mental health. We examined the described technologies' imagined uses and the problems they were positioned to address. We found that inventors justified emotion AI inventions as solutions to issues surrounding data accuracy, care provision and experience, patient-provider communication, emotion regulation, and preventing harms attributed to mental health causes. We then applied an ethical speculation lens to anticipate the potential implications of the promissory emotion AI-enabled futures described in patent applications. We argue that such a future is one filled with mental health conditions' (or 'non-expected' emotions') stigmatization, equating mental health with propensity for crime, and lack of data subjects' agency. By framing individuals with mental health conditions as unpredictable and not capable of exercising their own agency, emotion AI mental health patent applications propose solutions that intervene in this imagined future: intensive surveillance, an emphasis on individual responsibility over structural barriers, and decontextualized behavioral change interventions. Using ethical speculation, we articulate the consequences of these discourses, raising questions about the role of emotion AI as positive, inherent, or inevitable in health and care-related contexts. We discuss our findings' implications for patent review processes, and advocate for policy makers, researchers and technologists to refer to patent (applications) to access, evaluate and (re)consider potentially harmful sociotechnical imaginaries before they become our reality.more » « less
-
This paper evaluates the U.S. regulatory review of three emerging biotechnology products according to parameters, practices, and endpoints of assessments that are important to stakeholders and publics. First, we present a summary of the literature on variables that are important to non-expert publics in governing biotech products, including ethical, social, policy process, and risk and benefit parameters. Second, we draw from our USDA-funded project results that surveyed stakeholders with subject matter expertise about their attitudes towards important risk, benefit, sustainability, and societal impact parameters for assessing novel agrifood technologies, including biotech. Third, we evaluate the regulatory assessments of three food and agricultural biotechnology case studies that have been reviewed under U.S. regulatory agencies and laws of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, including gene-edited soybeans, beef cattle, and mustard greens. Evaluation of the regulatory review process was based on parameters identified in steps 1 and 2 which were deemed important to both publics and stakeholders. Based on this review, we then propose several policy options for U.S. federal agencies to strengthen their oversight processes to better align with a broader range of parameters to support sustainable agrifood products that rely on novel technologies. These policy options include 1) those that would not require new institutions or legal foundations (such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements and/or requiring a minimal level of safety data), 2) those that would require a novel institutional or cross-institutional framework (such as developing a publicly-available website and/or performing holistic sustainability assessments), and 3) those that would require the agencies to have additional legal authorities (such as requiring agencies to review biotech products according to a minimal set of health, environmental, and socio-economic parameters). Overall, the results of this analysis will be important for guiding policy practice and formulation in the regulatory assessment of emerging biotechnology products that challenge existing legal and institutional frameworks.more » « less
-
Abstract Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) messenger RNA (mRNA) editing can affect the sequence and function of translated proteins and has been extensively investigated in eukaryotes. However, the prevalence of A-to-I mRNA editing in bacteria, its governing regulatory principles, and its biological significance are poorly understood. Here, we show that A-to-I mRNA editing occurs in hundreds of transcripts across dozens of gammaproteobacterial species, with most edits predicted to recode protein sequences. Furthermore, we reveal conserved regulatory determinants controlling editing across gammaproteobacterial species. Using Acinetobacter baylyi as a model, we show that mutating TadA, the mediating enzyme, reduces editing across all sites. Conversely, overexpressing TadA resulted in the editing of >300 transcripts, attesting to the editing potential of TadA. Notably, we show for the first time, at the protein level, that normal levels of A-to-I mRNA editing lead to wild-type bacteria expressing two protein isoforms from a single gene. Finally, we show that a TadA mutant with deficient editing activity does not grow at high temperatures, suggesting that RNA editing has a functional role in bacteria. Our work reveals that A-to-I mRNA editing in bacteria is widespread and has the potential to reshape the bacterial transcriptome and proteome.more » « less
-
Abstract This study investigates how proponents and critics of gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) employ expectations—discourses with future‐oriented impacts—as they compete to secure desired futures and mobilise social processes and resources towards their goal of influencing GEAF (re)regulation and agro‐food systems within the EU. We draw on 27 semi‐structured interviews and 53 Euractiv media articles to identify and analyse GEAF proponents’ and critics’ responses to the 2018 European Court of Justice regulatory decision that GEAF will be regulated as genetically modified organisms. Despite similar themes of environmental sustainability, food security and winners and losers in agricultural innovation systems, proponents’ and critics’ discourses reflect divergent expectations of GEAF. We argue that both groups link their expectations with concerns about path dependencies in technological innovations and agro‐food systems, which serve to influence emerging political, public and elite perspectives on GEAF. Although to some extent performative, these concerns offer important insights that should be problematised and engaged within GEAF governance spaces. This study is conceptually framed by the socio‐technical futures, path dependency and political economy of food and agriculture literature.more » « less
