Transgenic Golden Rice has been hailed as a practical solution to vitamin A deficiency, but has also been heavily criticized. To facilitate a balanced view on this polarized debate, we investigated existing arguments for and against Golden Rice from a sustainability science perspective. In a structured literature review of peer-reviewed publications on Golden Rice, we assessed to what extent 64 articles addressed 70 questions covering different aspects of sustainability. Using cluster analysis, we grouped the literature into two major branches, containing two clusters each. These clusters differed in the range and nature of the sustainability aspects addressed, disciplinary affiliation and overall evaluation of Golden Rice. The ‘biotechnological’ branch (clusters: ‘technical effectiveness’ and ‘advocacy’) was dominated by the natural sciences, focused on biophysical plant-consumer interactions, and evaluated Golden Rice positively. In contrast, the ‘socio-systemic’ branch (clusters: ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘equity and holism’) was primarily comprised of social sciences, addressed a wider variety of sustainability aspects including participation, equity, ethics and biodiversity, and more often pointed to the shortcomings of Golden Rice. There were little to no integration efforts between the two branches, and highly polarized positions arose in the clusters on ‘advocacy’ and ‘equity and holism’. To explore this divide, we investigated the influences of disciplinary affiliations and personal values on the respective problem framings. We conclude that to move beyond a polarized debate, it may be fruitful to ground the Golden Rice discourse in facets and methods of sustainability science, with an emphasis on participation and integration of diverging interests.

中文翻译：

---

从分歧到对话：解读黄金大米辩论。

转基因黄金大米被誉为解决维生素A缺乏症的实用方法，但也遭到严厉批评。为了促进对这场两极分化的争论形成平衡的看法，我们从可持续科学的角度研究了支持和反对黄金大米的现有论点。在对有关黄金大米的同行评审出版物进行结构化文献综述中，我们评估了 64 篇文章在多大程度上解决了涵盖可持续发展不同方面的 70 个问题。使用聚类分析，我们将文献分为两个主要分支，每个分支包含两个聚类。这些集群在所涉及的可持续发展方面的范围和性质、学科隶属关系和黄金大米的总体评价方面有所不同。“生物技术”分支（集群：“技术有效性”和“宣传”）以自然科学为主，重点关注生物物理植物与消费者的相互作用，并对黄金大米做出积极评价。相比之下，“社会系统”分支（集群：“经济效率”和“公平与整体论”）主要由社会科学组成，涉及更广泛的可持续性方面，包括参与、公平、道德和生物多样性，并且更常见指出了黄金大米的缺点。这两个部门之间几乎没有进行整合，并且在“倡导”和“公平与整体主义”方面出现了高度两极分化的立场。为了探讨这种分歧，我们研究了学科背景和个人价值观对各自问题框架的影响。我们的结论是，为了超越两极分化的辩论，将黄金大米话语立足于可持续科学的各个方面和方法，并强调不同利益的参与和整合，可能会取得成果。