ABSTRACT

Genome editing techniques (GETs) could support the transition towards a circular bio-based economy. This would require a regulatory framework that enables technical and scientific progress while ensuring safety for humans and environment. In this context, there is a debate among stakeholders in Europe whether products resulting from GETs should be subject to the GMO legislation. This paper analyses different stakeholder positions and underlying arguments on this question based on the Politically Inherent Dynamics Approach (PIDA). This takes into consideration the role of actor interests, the problem structure, institutions and alternative instruments. The analysis, based on a series of expert interviews and a Delphi survey, reveals that differing stakeholder positions are strongly shaped by differing beliefs and interests. This leads to a divergence in the definition of the problem structure, and the related solutions, in terms of the institutional set-up and alternative instruments considered. It highlights the need to reach a shared vision among actors of the problems that need to be solved, in order to understand if GETs can be considered as one potential ‘solution’, embracing the precautionary and innovation principles. Alternative instruments are proposed, including a call for higher stakeholder engagement and diverse regulatory instruments.

摘要

基因组编辑技术（GETs）可以支持向循环生物经济的过渡。这将需要一个监管框架，在确保人类和环境安全的同时，实现技术和科学进步。在这种情况下，欧洲的利益相关者之间存在着争论，即由GETs产生的产品是否应服从GMO法规。本文基于政治内在动力学方法（PIDA）分析了该问题的不同利益相关者立场和基础论点。这考虑了行动者利益，问题结构，制度和替代手段的作用。基于一系列专家访谈和德尔菲调查的分析表明，不同的利益相关者立场是由不同的信仰和兴趣强烈影响的。这导致问题结构和相关解决方案的定义在机构设置和所考虑的替代手段方面存在分歧。它强调需要在参与者之间就需要解决的问题达成共识，以便理解GETs是否可以被视为一种潜在的“解决方案”，其中包括预防性和创新性原则。提出了其他手段，包括呼吁更多的利益相关者参与和各种监管手段。为了理解是否可以将GETs视为一种潜在的“解决方案”，其中包含预防性和创新性原则。提出了其他手段，包括呼吁更多的利益相关者参与和各种监管手段。为了理解是否可以将GETs视为一种潜在的“解决方案”，其中包含预防性和创新性原则。提出了其他手段，包括呼吁更多的利益相关者参与和各种监管手段。