International perspectives on the meaning of engagement in biotechnology risk assessment: the case of gene drive

Abstract

Biotechnology remains challenging for risk assessors. The risk assessment of genetically modified organisms was the locus of considerable, acrimonious, and politicised debate and subjected to intense scrutiny. Since then, biotechnology has evolved to include new tools, such as genome editing and gene drive, and risk assessors are more sensitive to stakeholder and public views. While engagement is increasingly recognised as important in risk governance, it is underrepresented in the governance literature, remains challenging in risk assessment, and needs empirical cases to develop theory. Imagining engagement in risk assessment will require thinking about when, where, and how to engage people in risk assessment processes in both research and regulatory contexts. However, current risk assessment methods and processes make engagement of non-technical experts challenging and risk assessors may need to innovate and diverge from the norms of risk assessment. Gene drive presents a case of risk assessment that has generated a plethora of prescriptive calls and recommendations for engagement. We use this case study to explore how both technical and non-technical experts and stakeholders involved in gene drive risk assessment are imagining engagement. We conduct qualitative, interpretive research, drawing on 30 interviews with participants across five continents. We show that the people involved with engagement in risk assessment are talking about drastically different things when they talk about engagement. Placing an empirical and theoretical spotlight on engagement in risk assessment, we argue that conversations need to draw on our insights to move beyond simply recognising, justifying, and calling for engagement.