BIOTOPIC
An analytical approach to the implementation
of genetically modified crops
Kristian Borch and Birgitte Rasmussen
Public scepticism towards genetically modified (GM) crops is increasing. To address this, the risks and benefits of GM crops
must be examined across scientific disciplines, and be discussed with the authorities, the agricultural industry and the
consumers. In a feasibility study we have systematically analysed the challenges of the development and marketing of GM
crops in Europe. A life-cycle inventory was used together with established technology foresight techniques in an interdisciplinary
and empirical framework. The approach taken in this study established a dialogue between stakeholders and provided a
framework for discussions about the future direction of GM crops.
he strong public scepticism that the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops already
faces in Europe might soon spread to other parts
of the world. Therefore, it is timely to examine the
consequences of GM crops from the perspective of
society as well as of industry. In this article, we suggest
the use of technology foresight (TF), which is a
prospective and transparent framework, to analyse the
future use of the rapidly progressing scientific field of
GM crops. TF is the process and dialogue involved in
systematically attempting to look into the longer-term
future of science, technology, economy and society,
with the aim of identifying areas of strategic research.
TF is concerned with the infrastructure necessary to
recognize and exploit technological opportunities as
they emerge1,2. This framework cannot predict the
future but it does enable an organization to learn, adapt
and enrich the ongoing strategic discussion.
T
Public acceptance
The prevailing presumption made by the biotechnology industry is that the public hesitancy about the
use of GM crops can be counteracted by consumer
education and the establishment of scientific credibility for companies engineering GM crops3. However,
this assumption is probably erroneous. First, increased
knowledge of gene technology and its risks and benefits are not likely to affect ethical concerns4 or anxiety about the potential monopoly of multinational
biotechnology companies5. Second, the establishment
of scientific credibility is not likely to ease consumer
concerns because uncertainty will be deliberately
sought out and maximized by experts on each side of
areas of conflict.
The reason for the public scepticism towards GM
crops is an uncertainty about the longer-term risks and
consequences of growing GM crops. This creates
uncertainty for the biotechnology industry and the
authorities because they lack clear signals about
whether or not society will accept the technology. It is
a political responsibility to express a standpoint and to
make decisions on these uncertainties on behalf of the
K. Borch ([email protected]) and B. Rasmussen are at Risoe
National Laboratory, PO Box 49, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
484
consumers and in accordance with the common understanding of societal risk acceptance. However, society,
politicians and the responsible authorities have difficulties in reaching a consensus about the coverage and
application of risk assessments concerning GM crops.
Society and risk analysis
When analysing risks today, we face a new type of
uncertainty about our future6. New technologies, such
as genetic engineering, and their possible consequences
pose new challenges to our foresight. Scientists do not
agree about their consequences to ecosystems, health
and the environment, and, where scientists disagree,
policy makers find themselves in an uncertain position
to take decisions about the future7. A central issue in a
prospective study related to genetic engineering is the
risk and uncertainty aspects related to the GM crops.
Two prominent social theories have been shaping the
discourse of environmental politics during recent years:
the risk society theory and the theory of ecological
modernization.
Ulrick Beck’s risk society theory uses gene technology as an example of the nature of risk we face today.
He argues that the focus is more and more on hazards
which are neither visible nor perceptible to the victims;
hazards that in some cases may not even effect within
the life spans of those affected, but instead during those
of their children; hazards in any case require the ‘sensory
organs’ of science – theories, experiments, measuring
instruments – in order to become visible or interpretable
at all8.
Modern industrial societies are changing from being
based on the distribution of ‘goods’ (materials, products) to being based on the distribution of ‘bads’ (risks).
The authorities are no longer able to guarantee safety
from risks because genetic engineering (for example),
in contrast to early industrial risks, cannot be limited
in time or place and are not accountable to established
rules of causality, blame and liability, and cannot be
compensated for or insured against.
By contrast, the theory of ecological modernization9
outlines a hyper-rational strategy for correcting the
ecological flaws of contemporary production and consumption practices. Ecological modernists emphasize the
role of strict governmental regulations in promoting
0167-7799/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0167-7799(00)01509-2
TIBTECH DECEMBER 2000 (Vol. 18)
BIOTOPIC
innovation in environmental technology. The key element in executing this
transformation is switching over to the
use of cleaner, more efficient and less
resource intensive technologies through
a process of ‘super-industrialization’.
Ecological modernization relies on the
implementation of anticipatory planning practices (the precautionary principle). The successful execution of this
approach depends on the organizational
internalization of ecological responsibility.
Cohen has attempted to formulate the
risk society and ecological modernization perspec-tives into a unified theory
of social transformation9.
LCI
Existing system
(conventional grass)
Survey or
questionnaire
Expert panel
Building
scenarios
Strategy
Driving
forces
Hypothetical system
(GM grass)
trends in Biotechnology
Figure 1
The different methods used in the stepwise process of analysing the marketing of a genetically modified
Technology foresight and
(GM) crop in a technology foresight framework. First, a life-cycle inventory (LCI) is constructed to define
life-cycle inventories
We suggest that TF can enable science the boundaries of the GM crop system; if the crop is hypothetical, this can be done by analogy with a simito take a proactive part in the policy- lar conventional crop. Then, experts identified in the LCI participate in an expert panel to find the driving
making process. TF can be used as a tool forces involved. Finally, scenarios are built using these driving forces in an attempt to find out which forces
in the dialogue needed in order to over- are the most important and what the most likely outcomes are.
come the deadlock that GM crops face
The LCI gave an overview of the grass-field system
today. It is an attempt to analyse a technical issue using a
perspective that is more cross-disciplinary than is nor- and identified a complicated network of stakeholders
mally enabled by specific research. This can only be done and experts who could be consulted later in the proin an interdisciplinary framework in which descriptive cess. The main problems were to determine boundaries
research is extended by prescriptive analysis, such as that limited the complexity of the system without
ethical aspects and how the effects of biotechnology on losing the holistic perspective and to obtain sufficient
future generations should be valued. The challenge is to information to give adequate input in to the scenario
create a learning process that can overcome the problem analysis. The ‘experts’ who participated in the panel
of cultural and methodological differences between were selected on the basis of the network identified in
the LCI and were representatives of key constituencies.
scientific disciplines.
Taking a corporate perspective, we have tested a TF These experts need to be able to extend their knowlframework to analyse the problems of the development edge into the uncertainties of the future, and they have
and future marketing of GM crops systematically. The to be imaginative. Identifying the right experts is
case studied was a joint research project between the crucial if the analysis is to be a success. In this study, the
world’s largest producer of clover and grass seed (DLF- LCI was an adequate tool but, in a larger study, an
Trifolium, Roskilde, Denmark), and Risø National iterative process might be necessary in which the initial
Laboratory (Roskilde, Denmark). The overall objec- group of experts is asked to identify further individuals
tive of the project was to produce a GM ryegrass that to ensure that all issues are covered11.
could not produce stems and flowers during grassland
farming. Without the stems and flowers, the GM rye- Building a scenario
grass would have a reduced content of the poorly
Scenario analyses have been successfully used to
digestible lignin, which would consequently enhance explore options for future crop protection12. These
its nutritional value.
scenarios consider the wider implications of future
The method used in the TF framework was a modi- decisions, such as changes in the structure of industry
fied life-cycle inventory (LCI), which served as a plat- sectors, political decisions, consumer acceptance, subform for the construction of ‘scenarios’ by a panel of stitute technologies and so on. To build scenarios, it is
multidisciplinary experts (Fig. 1). The objective of the necessary to find major driving forces. This was done
analysis was to support strategic planning and regulatory by letting the expert panel brainstorm over trigger
decision making. The LCI serves as the foundation for questions related to distinct phases from development
this TF analysis, acting as a frame to organize infor- to marketing of the GM grass. For example, a trigger
mation, and recognizes that all stages of a product’s life question in the marketing phase could be ‘which issues
cycle have environmental, social and economic impact. could make the marketing of the GM grass a success or
LCI, in contrast to life-cycle assessment (LCA), indi- a failure?’ The brainstorm revealed a number of driving
cates that the impact-assessment stage described in forces and, from these, the panel chose 26 that were
ISO 14040 (Ref. 10) has been excluded. In this present believed to have the greatest impact on the future
study, the impact-assessment stage was excluded because direction of the GM technology.
the necessary data and information for quantification are
These 26 driving forces were then evaluated in a
naturally unavailable. Therefore, the equivalent con- larger forum of Danish experts and stakeholders using
ventional grass system was described both qualitatively a questionnaire (31 out of 49 returned the questionand graphically, assisting the identification of the naire). The respondents were asked to evaluate each
principal differences between the two systems.
driving force’s influence on the future demand for GM
TIBTECH DECEMBER 2000 (Vol. 18)
485
BIOTOPIC
Driving forces related to the R&D of the GM grass
It is important to be the first on the market with GM grass
Uncertainty interval:
Come first---------------------------------------Come late
It is important that the investors do not over-react on negative press
coverage
Uncertainty interval:
Robust-----------------------------------–––----Nervous
Driving forces related to the public acceptance of the GM grass
It is important to have an open and transparent dialogue on risk and
utility
Uncertainty interval:
Dialog------––––--------------------------------No dialogue
It is important that the public can recognize a high utility-value
Uncertainty interval:
Excitement--------------------------------------Indifference
Driving forces related to farmers acceptance of the GM grass
It is important whether the GM grass will change agricultural
practices or not
Uncertainty interval:
Big effects-------------------------------------No effects
Driving forces related to international marketing of the GM grass
It is important that the GM grass can be marketed globally
Uncertainty interval:
Harmonization--------------------––National restrictions
Figure 2
Uncertainty intervals in the driving forces that are used for creating scenarios. The
driving forces are listed in categories from early development to marketing. The scenarios can then be constructed stepwise, thus reducing the complexity of writing the
scenario and also reducing the numbers of scenarios needed because the preceding
scenarios restrict the scenarios that are possible in the next category. Abbreviation:
GM, genetically modified.
grass and how certain the outcomes would be in the
following categories: (1) corporate research and development; (2) public acceptance; (3) farmer acceptance;
and (4) marketing of GM crops. Furthermore, the
respondents were asked to rank their expertise inside
each category as expert, knowledgeable or layperson.
The most important driving forces are those that have
a direct influence on the future demand for GM grass
but whose outcome is uncertain. Figure 2 shows the
most significant of these driving forces selected by the
respondents who ranked themselves as either experts or
knowledgeable inside a specific category.
It is important to have identified a number of scenarios (two to seven scenarios are often considered to
be the optimum) in order to give the decision makers
the opportunity to monitor trends and to be prepared
for alternative developments in technology, marked and
legislation. The uncertainty interval of the driving
forces (Fig. 2) can be used to construct these multiple
scenarios. Schnaars has suggested four different approaches
that can be adopted when designing a strategy with
multiple scenarios13:
(1) a robust strategy that performs well over the full range
of scenarios considered;
(2) a flexible strategy that keep options open for as long
as possible and considers the cost of postponing a
decision;
(3) a multiple-coverage strategy that simultaneously
486
pursues multiple strategies using extensive resources
until the future becomes clear; and
(4) a gambling strategy in which the strategy is selected
by gambling on the development of other futures
in which it produces more than proportional returns.
A trend scenario, which describes the development of
the present from certain trends, could also be useful.
From a more general perspective of the public
acceptance of GM crops, the combined industry must
collaborate with the authorities in developing threat
and conflict scenarios (worst-case scenarios), which can
elaborate on possible concerns and their causes. We will
not describe the scenario process in detail here but
Schwarts has given a guide to scenarios and the process
of creating them14.
Conclusions
The overall experience from this exercise is that the
TF process assists a dialectical debate by reducing the
comprehensibility gap between different scientific
disciplines and between different stakeholders, in a
learning process. Moreover, TF identifies who has the
responsibility of taking the appropriate decisions, considering both scientific and ethical matters. It thus
prevents the erosion of public trust in established institutions, science and the biotechnology industry. Finally,
the study reveals the societal necessity to reach a consensus about coverage and application of risk assessment
on GM crop technology.
References
1 Georghiou, L. (1996) The UK Technology Foresight program.
Futures 28, 359–377
2 Martin, B.R. (1995) Foresight in science and technology. Technol.
Anal. Strategic Management 7, 139–167
3 Swords, K.M.M. (1999) Beyond breeding: pest-resistant plants and
public perception. Trends Biotechnol. 17, 261–262
4 Bredahl, L. et al. (1998) Consumer attitudes and decision-making
with regard to genetically engineered food products – a review of
the literature and a presentation of models for future research.
J. Consum. Policy 21, 251–277
5 Mannion, A.M. (1995) Agriculture, environment and biotechnology.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 53, 31–45
6 Webster, A. (1999) Technologies in transition, policies in transition:
foresight in the risk society. Technovation 19, 413–421
7 van Dommelen, A. (1999) Scientific controversy in biosafety
assessment. In Hazard Identification of Agricultural Biotechnology,
(van Dommelen, A., ed.), pp. 15–45, International Books
8 Beck, U. (1992) On the logic of wealth distribution and risk distribution. In Risk Society, (Beck, U., ed.) pp. 19–50, Sage Publications
9 Cohen, M.J. (1997) Risk society and ecological modernisation.
Futures 29, 105–119
10 ISO 14040 (1997) Environmental management: life cycle assessment.
Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
11 Nedeva, M. et al. (1996) The use of co-nomination to identify
expert participants for technology foresight. R&D Management 26,
155–168
12 Rabbinge, R. and van Oijen, M. (1997) Scenario studies for
future agriculture and crop protection. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 103,
197–201
13 Van der Heijden, K. (1997) Scenarios, strategies and the strategy
process. In Nijenrode research papers series number 1997-01, Nijenrode
University Press
14 Schwartz, P. (1996) Planning for the future in an uncertain world.
In The Art of the Long View (Schwartz, P., ed.), pp. 241–248,
Doubleday Currency
TIBTECH DECEMBER 2000 (Vol. 18)