Governing gene-edited crops: risks, regulations, and responsibilities as perceived by agricultural genomics experts in Canada

Figures & data

Table 1. RRI principles and framing questions.

RRI Principles (Drawn from: Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013, 38)	Framing Questions: for interviews with agricultural genomics experts in Canada
Anticipation Asks ‘what if’ questions about innovation and its complex implications; considering both intended and unintended consequences; explores tensions between the reification of prediction exercises and diversity of possible futures	What risks and benefits of GE in agriculture do experts anticipate? How does GE relate to the (un)anticipated impacts of earlier biotechnology?
Reflexivity Reflecting on underlying assumptions, worldviews, and ignorance; considering what is known and unknown; thinking critically about the foundations and limitations of perspectives, including one’s own	How are experts exercising reflexivity, if at all? What could/does reflexivity look like in the agri-food innovation context?
Deliberative Inclusion Seeking out a wide range of perspectives on visions and purposes; normative and substantive deliberation; representing diverse knowledges, values, and meanings	How do experts perceive ‘the public’? What are their opinions on public engagement? What assumptions/frames do they espouse regarding expertise and knowledge? How do experts envision the inclusion of different knowledges?
Responsiveness Acting on new insights developed through reflexivity and deliberative inclusion: ‘an iterative, inclusive, and open process of adaptive learning, with dynamic capability’	Is the current governance framework set up for technological change and innovation? What about changing social values and norms? Who is responsible for responsiveness?

Table 2. Summary of interview analysis for RRI principles.

RRI Principles	Interview Findings: Agricultural Genomics Experts’ Perspectives
Anticipation	According to participants: GE offers many advantages for plant breeding and will impact the future of food – assumed inevitability. GEC benefits could be more equitably distributed than those of GMOs, but organic farmers are likely to reject GECs. There are minimal risks of GE applications in agriculture. GE tools can mitigate pre-existing plant breeding risks (e.g. more precise). ‘Overregulating’ GE will repeat the corporate concentration that occurred with GMOs. It is unlikely that existing genomic technologies (e.g. GMOs) will be supplanted or eliminated by GE. Participants exercise anticipation more than any other RRI principle, with specific insights on consequences of GE in agriculture and the regulatory context. However, their assumed inevitability of GE for future food systems drives forward a supportive-positive imaginary (foreclosing conflicting perspectives).
Reflexivity	According to participants: Interest and advocacy groups are benefit from fueling polarized discourse and misinformation. Governments are beholden to public acceptance. Science is objective and separate from politics. Participants are reflexive in stating the limitations of their knowledge and scientific expertise – but continued to assume their knowledge was objective.
Deliberative Inclusion	According to participants: The public has a very poor understanding of agri-food technology and hold their views strongly regardless. The organics sector and interest groups (e.g. Greenpeace) contribute to public misunderstanding and rejection of GM and GE technology. Science has a privileged claim to truth; largely uninterested in including other ways of knowing in GEC risk assessment and governance. Participants are highly critical of the effectiveness and merit of public engagement in GE governance decisions, mostly due to insufficient technical/scientific understanding. Participants view themselves as ill-equipped for deliberative inclusion and do not view it as part of their job.
Responsiveness	According to participants: Product-based regulatory approaches are more responsive and ‘future proof’ than process-based approaches (e.g. EU). The government is responsible for responding to changing social values and norms through public engagement (not scientists or developers). Participants did not view themselves as responsible for establishing the parameters of responsive governance, attributing responsibility to governments.

Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar