Psychological and ethical perspectives on gene editing

LAND & WATER

Dr Aditi Mankad| Senior Research Scientist, Team Leader (Agricultural Innovation & Biosecurity), AUSS

Dr Lucy Carter| Research Scientist, Adaptive & Urban Social Systems (AUSS) CSIRO L&W

29 November 2017

What do we mean when we say “psychological”?

Presentation title | Presenter name

AttitudesPerceptions

CognitionsSocial

comparison

Social

interaction

Emotions

2 |

What are “new technologies”?

• Integral to the social environment; embedded

• Does the public have a right to comment on scientific invention?

Presentation title | Presenter name3 |

• “Disruptive” tech challenges the status quo: world views, habits, morals, natural order

• Some technologies may deliver benefits, may also introduce new risks

Public Acceptance

• Acceptance is not a single outcome, nota “license”

• Social expectations, messaging and framing matter

• Acceptance needs to be considered in context

• Not everyone thinks the same; most people don’t think like us!

Presentation title | Presenter name4 |

Public Acceptance

Risk perception Threat perception Trust Efficacy Fairness

Social norms Perceived control Emotions OTHER

Ethical and social debates about

biotechnologies

Typically comprise two themes:

1. Public engagement; social acceptance; ‘social licence to operate’

2. Regulatory approval

For the purpose of:

3. Increasing adoption/uptake or;

4. Decreasing opposition to technology.

Ethical and social considerations relating to novel biotechnologies encompass MUCH more than this…

What ‘ethics’ is… and what it’s not

There are multiple ethical approaches used in ethical decision-making.

Ethical issues can be viewed from different lens and at a range of scales (institutional, policy, research, sectoral, etc.)

“The goal for ethics is not to decide what’s right or wrong, it’s to analyse the strengths of the claims put forward…”

‘Morals’ and ‘ethics’ are not the same.

Image courtesy of the Ethical Journalism Network

Pragmatic approach to ethics

Acknowledges some applications of science are objectionable to some sectors of the community whose deeply-felt concerns should not be overlooked.

Recognition that both proponents & opponents have vested interests in the regulation of GM.

Focus on applications with socially desirable goals –public good research

In-practice versus in-principle claims

• Fundamental moral objections

– Intrinsic concerns based on ‘absolute’ standards

– “Playing God” objections

– Claims about GM being an “unnatural” process

• Concerns about impacts, known, unknown and assumed

– Risks and benefits, potential impacts (+ and -)

– Harms (to people, animals and the environment)

In-practice concerns

Consequences of technology

Risks and benefits

Harms to people,

environment

Potential Impacts

In-principle concerns

Intrinsic objections

Playing God objections

‘Unresolvable’Based on absolute

standards

Objections based on

naturalness

Ethics of GM debate in 2007….

Ethics of GM debate in 2017…

Public participation

in science

Deeper and broader models of engagement

Real-world applications to meet socially

desirable goals

Science integrationMultiple scales of

governance

Role of trust in science

and government

Responsible conduct of

science

Effective partnering and learning

Systems approaches to decision-

making

Lessons from the past decade

• Overstating the benefits of GM technology; exaggerating the risks;

• Isolating discussions about GM from other wider agricultural debates: one tool among many

• Making broad assumptions about impacts (GM applications are context-specific)

• Dismissing community concerns as irrational, irrelevant or illegitimate

Land & WaterLucy CarterResearch Scientist, AUSS

t +61 2 9123 4567e firstname.surname@csiro.auw www.csiro.au/lorem

Land & WaterAditi MankadSnr Research Scientist, AUSS

t +61 2 9123 4567e firstname.surname@csiro.auw www.csiro.au/lorem

ADD BUSINESS UNIT/FLAGSHIP NAME

Thank you