Search for: All records

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and gene drive organisms (GDOs) have been proposed as technological responses to complex entrenched environmental challenges. They also share several characteristics of emerging risks, including extensive uncertainties, systemic interdependencies, and risk profiles intertwined with societal contexts. This Perspective conducts a comparative analysis of the two technologies, and identifies ways in which their research and policy communities may learn from each other to inform future risk governance strategies. We find that SAI and GDOs share common features of aiming to improve or restore a public good, are characterized by numerous potential ecological, societal, and ethical risks associated with deep uncertainty, and are challenged by how best to coordinate behavior of different actors. Meanwhile, SAI and GDOs differ in their temporal and spatial mode of deployment, spread, degree and type of reversibility, and potential for environmental monitoring. Based on this analysis, we find the field of SAI may learn from GDOs by enhancing its international collaborations for governance and oversight, while the field of GDOs may learn from SAI by investing in research focused on economics and decision-modeling. Additionally, given the relatively early development stages of SAI and GDOs, there may be ample opportunities to learn from risk governance efforts of other emerging technologies, including the need for improved monitoring and incorporating aspects of responsible innovation in research and any deployment. 

An inclusive and socially legitimate governance structure is absent to address concerns over new agricultural biotechnologies. Establishing an agricultural bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology is urgent. Highlighting the social and ethical dimensions of current agricultural bioengineering disputes in the food system, we discuss how a nationally recognized policy forum could improve decision-making and increase public understanding of the issues. We clarify ways the concepts that are used to categorize food and frame governance of food affect consumer choices, and how dissemination of information and the mode of dissemination can contribute to social inequities. We cite the record of medically-oriented bioethic commissions and the history of international bioethic commissions in support of our argument, and end by discussing what such a commission dedicated to agriculture and food issues could reasonably be expected to achieve. 

Abstract The goal of engineering the microbiome of the built environment is to create places and spaces that are better for human health. Like other emerging technologies, engineering the microbiome of the built environment may bring considerable benefits but there has been a lack of exploration on its societal implication and how to engineer in an ethical way. To date, this topic area has also not been pulled together into a singular study for any systematic review or analysis. This study fills this gap by providing the first a systematic review of societal and ethical implications of engineering microbiomes and the application of this knowledge to engineering the microbiome of the built environment. To organize and guide our analysis, we invoked four major ethical principles (individual good/non-maleficence, collective good/beneficence, autonomy, and justice) as a framework for characterizing and categorizing 15 distinct themes that emerged from the literature. We argue that these different themes can be used to explain and predict the social and ethical implications of engineering the microbiome of the built environment that if addressed adequately can help to improve public health as this field further develops at global scales. 

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. 

Intrinsically safe designs and a staged transparent development process will be essential 

Stakeholder and community engagement are critical for the successful development of new technologies that aim to be integrated into sustainable agriculture systems. This study reports on an approach used to engage stakeholders within the sweetpotato community in North Carolina to understand their preferences, needs, and concerns as they relate to a new sensing and diagnostic platform. This work also demonstrates an example of real-time technology assessment that also fosters responsible innovation through inclusivity and responsiveness. Through the conduction of 29 interviews with sweetpotato stakeholders in North Carolina, we found that participants found the most value in detecting external sweetpotato characteristics, as well as the ability to use or connect to a smartphone that can be used in field. They also found value in including environmental parameters and having a Spanish language module. Most participants indicated that they were comfortable with sharing data as long as it benefited the greater North Carolina sweetpotato industry, and were concerned with sharing these data with “outside” competitors. We also observed differences and variations between stakeholder groups. Overall, this work demonstrates a relatively simple, low-cost approach to eliciting stakeholder needs within a local agricultural context to improve sustainability, an approach that could be leveraged and transferred to other local agrifood systems.