Full Text:   <491>

Summary:  <117>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2023-12-08

Received: 2022-11-28

Revision Accepted: 2023-03-30

Crosschecked: 2023-12-12

Cited: 0

Clicked: 927

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN

0000-0002-4661-8119

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 2023 Vol.24 No.12 P.1093-1105

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2200601


Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review


Author(s):  Siti Hafsyah IDRIS, Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN, Lee Wei CHANG

Affiliation(s):  Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Jalan Sarjana 1/2, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia; more

Corresponding email(s):   nurzatil@um.edu.my

Key Words:  Systematic literature review, Gene editing, Plant breeding, Ethical and legal issues, Consequentialism, Virtue ethics principles


Siti Hafsyah IDRIS, Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN, Lee Wei CHANG. Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 2023, 24(12): 1093-1105.

@article{title="Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review",
author="Siti Hafsyah IDRIS, Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN, Lee Wei CHANG",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science B",
volume="24",
number="12",
pages="1093-1105",
year="2023",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.B2200601"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review
%A Siti Hafsyah IDRIS
%A Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN
%A Lee Wei CHANG
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B
%V 24
%N 12
%P 1093-1105
%@ 1673-1581
%D 2023
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.B2200601

TY - JOUR
T1 - Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review
A1 - Siti Hafsyah IDRIS
A1 - Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN
A1 - Lee Wei CHANG
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
VL - 24
IS - 12
SP - 1093
EP - 1105
%@ 1673-1581
Y1 - 2023
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.B2200601


Abstract: 
Biotechnology policies and regulations must be revised and updated to reflect the most recent advances in plant-breeding technology. New plant breeding Techniques (NPBT) such as gene editing have been applied to address the myriad of challenges in plant breeding, while the use of NPBT as emerging biotechnological tools raises legal and ethical concerns. This study aims to highlight how gene editing is operationalized in the existing literature and examine the critical issues of ethical and legal issues of gene editing for plant breeding. We carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) to provide the current states of ethical and legal discourses surrounding this topic. We also identified critical research priority areas and policy gaps that must be addressed when designing the future governance of gene editing in plant breeding.

基因编辑在植物育种中的道德和法律影响:一项系统性文献综述

Siti Hafsyah IDRIS1,Nurzatil Sharleeza MAT JALALUDDIN2,Lee Wei CHANG(曾立纬)3
1马来西亚玛拉工艺大学法学院,马来西亚雪兰莪州莎阿南,40450
2马来西亚马来亚大学研究管理与创新综合大楼3层农业生物技术研究中心(CEBAR),马来西亚吉隆坡,50603
3马来西亚马来亚大学高影响力研究大楼1层文明对话中心,马来西亚吉隆坡,50603
摘要:生物技术的政策和法规必须不断修订和更新,以适应最新的植物育种技术进展。如基因编辑这样的新植物育种技术(NPBT),已被应用于解决植物育种中的各种难题,但同时,将NPBT作为新兴生物技术工具也引起了一系列的法律和伦理问题。本研究旨在突出基因编辑技术在现有文献中的实施情况,并研究基因编辑技术在植物育种中面临的道德和伦理问题。我们进行了系统性文献综述(SLR),以提供围绕此主题的伦理和法律论述的现状。我们还确定了在涉及基因编辑技术在植物育种中的未来治理时必须解决的关键研究优先领域和政策空白。

关键词:系统性文献综述;基因编辑;植物育种;法律和伦理问题;结果论;美德伦理原则

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]AntonsenT, DasslerT, 2021. How to do what is right, not what is easy: requirements for assessment of genome-edited and genetically modified organisms under ethical guidelines. Food Ethics, 6(2):12.

[2]BainC, LindbergS, SelfaT, 2020. Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance. Agric Human Values, 37(2):265-279.

[3]BakerT, 2019. What is Freedom to Operate (FTO) in Relation to Patents and IP? https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38c0d68a-6a95-4769-bcf1-adc805e19c58

[4]BarrettH, RoseDC, 2022. Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociol Ruralis, 62(2):162-189.

[5]BartkowskiB, TheesfeldI, PirscherF, et al., 2018. Snipping around for food: economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum, 96:172-180.

[6]BateNJ, DardickCD, de MaagdRA, et al., 2021. Opportunities and challenges applying gene editing to specialty crops. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant, 57(4):709-719.

[7]BearthA, KaptanG, KesslerSH, 2022. Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland. Agric Human Values, 39(3):1117-1131.

[8]BechtoldS, 2018. Beyond risk considerations: where and how can a debate about non-safety related issues of genome editing in agriculture take place? Front Plant Sci, 9:1724.

[9]BlakeneyM, 2012. Patenting of plant varieties and plant breeding methods. J Exp Bot, 63(3):1069-1074.

[10]BoettcherM, McManusMT, 2015. Choosing the right tool for the job: RNAi, TALEN, or CRISPR. Mol Cell, 58(4):575-585.

[11]BrinegarK, YetisenAK, ChoiS, et al., 2017. The commercialization of genome-editing technologies. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 37(7):924-932.

[12]Broad Institute, 2022. Information about Licensing CRISPR Systems, Including for Clinical Use. Broad Institute, Cambridge. https://www.‍broadinstitute.‍org/partnerships/office-strategic-alliances-and-partnering/information-about-licensing-crispr-genome-edi

[13]BuschG, RyanE, von KeyserlingkMAG, et al., 2022. Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose. Agric Human Values, 39(1):151-164.

[14]ChenKL, WangYP, ZhangR, et al., 2019. CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 70:667-697.

[15]ClappJ, RuderSL, 2020. Precision technologies for agriculture: digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Glob Environ Polit, 20(3):49-69.

[16]DasslerT, MyhrAI, 2021. The ethical sustainability matrix: a practical tool for assessment of GMOs including genome-edited organisms. In: Schübel H, Wallimann-Helmer I (Eds.), Justice and Food Security in A Changing Climate. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, p.368-373.

[17]DavarnejadL, 2011. In the shadow of soft law: the handling of corporate social responsibility disputes under the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. J Disp Resol, 2011(2):351-385.

[18]de JongeB, SalazarR, VisserB, 2022. How regulatory issues surrounding new breeding technologies can impact smallholder farmer breeding: a case study from the Philippines. Plants People Planet, 4(1):96-105.

[19]EsveltKM, 2018. Gene Drive Should be a Nonprofit Technology. STAT, Boston. https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/27/gene-drive-should-be-nonprofit-technology

[20]CommissionEuropean, 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility, Responsible Business Conduct, and Business & Human Rights: Overview of Progress. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, p.1-64. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/34482/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

[21]CommissionEuropean, 2021. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies Opinion on the Ethics of Genome Editing. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, p.1-112. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/659034

[22]FaberN, JornaR, van EngelenJ, 2005. The sustainability of “sustainability”—a study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of “sustainability”. J Environ Assess Policy Manage, 7(1):1-33.

[23]FeeneyO, CockbainJ, MorrisonM, et al., 2018. Patenting foundational technologies: lessons from CRISPR and other core biotechnologies. Am J Bioethics, 18(12):36-48.

[24]FeeneyO, CockbainJ, SterckxS, 2021. Ethics, patents and genome editing: a critical assessment of three options of technology governance. Front Polit Sci, 3:731505.

[25]Genetic Literacy Project, 2022. Human and Agriculture Gene Editing: Regulations and Index. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org

[26]GeptsP, PapaR, 2003. Possible effects of (trans)gene flow from crops on the genetic diversity from landraces and wild relatives. Environ Biosafety Res, 2(2):89-103.

[27]GordonK, 2001. The OECD guidelines and other corporate responsibility instruments: a comparison. OECD Working Papers on International Investment. OECD Publishing, Paris, p.1-17.

[28]GuerriniCJ, CurnutteMA, SherkowJS, et al., 2017. The rise of the ethical license. Nat Biotechnol, 35(1):22-24.

[29]HarfoucheAL, PetousiV, MeilanR, et al., 2021. Promoting ethically responsible use of agricultural biotechnology. Trends Plant Sci, 26(6):546-559.

[30]HartungF, SchiemannJ, 2014. Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant J, 78(5):742-752.

[31]HefferonKL, HerringRJ, 2017. The end of the GMO? Genome editing, gene drives and new frontiers of plant technology. Rev Agrar Stud, 7(1):1-32.

[32]HelliwellR, HartleyS, PearceW, 2019. NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agric Human Values, 36(4):779-791.

[33]HughesSM, 2022. CRISPR-Cas9 and food in the European Union: an organic solution to an undetectable problem for food business operators. Eur J Risk Regul, 13(2):254-269.

[34]IFOAMOrganics International, 2017. Compatibility of Breeding Techniques in Organic Systems. Position Paper. IFOAM Organics International, Bonn, Germany, p.1-32.

[35]JasanoffS, HurlbutJ, SahaK, 2015. CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues Sci Technol, 32(1):25-32.

[36]JiangL, 2020. Commercialization of the gene-edited crop and morality: challenges from the liberal patent law and the strict GMO law in the EU. New Genet Soc, 39(2):191-218.

[37]JohnsonJA, AltweggR, EvansDM, et al., 2016. Is there a future for genome-editing technologies in conservation? Anim Conserv, 19(2):97-101.

[38]JongsmaKR, BredenoordAL, LuciveroF, 2018. Digital medicine: an opportunity to revisit the role of bioethicists. Am J Bioeth, 18(9):69-70.

[39]JungC, Capistrano-GossmannG, BraatzJ, et al., 2018. Recent developments in genome editing and applications in plant breeding. Plant Breed, 137(1):1-9.

[40]KelseyA, StillingerD, PhamTB, et al., 2020. Global governing bodies: a pathway for gene drive governance for vector mosquito control. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 103(3):976-985.

[41]KuzmaJ, 2018. Regulating gene-edited crops. Issues Sci Technol, 35(1):80-85.

[42]LassouedR, MacallDM, HesselnH, et al., 2019. Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion. Transgenic Res, 28(2):247-256.

[43]LenßenM, 2006. The overlap between patent and plant variety protection for transgenic plants: problems and a solution. SSRN.

[44]LiC, BrantE, BudakH, et al., 2021. CRISPR/Cas: a Nobel Prize award-winning precise genome editing technology for gene therapy and crop improvement. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol), 22(4):253-284.

[45]LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, et al., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339:b2700.

[46]LouwaarsN, JochemsenH, 2021. An ethical and societal analysis for biotechnological methods in plant breeding. Agronomy, 11(6):1183.

[47]LuciveroF, 2016. Promises, expectations and visions: on appraising the plausibility of socio-technical futures. In: Lucivero F (Ed.), Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies: Appraising the Moral Plausibility of Technological Visions. Springer, Cham, p.37-61.

[48]MacnaghtenP, HabetsMGJL, 2020. Breaking the impasse: towards a forward-looking governance framework for gene editing with plants. Plants People Planet, 2(4):‍353-365.

[49]MaliF, 2020. Is the patent system the way forward with the CRISPR-Cas 9 technology? Sci Technol Stud, 33(4):2-23.

[50]MenzJ, ModrzejewskiD, HartungF, et al., 2020. Genome edited crops touch the market: a view on the global development and regulatory environment. Front Plant Sci, 11:5860267.

[51]MephamB, 2000. A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the ethical matrix. J Agric Environ Ethics, 12(2):165-176.

[52]Metje-SprinkJ, SprinkT, HartungF, 2020. Genome-edited plants in the field. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 61:1-6.

[53]MeyerM, HeimstädtC, 2019. The divergent governance of gene editing in agriculture: a comparison of institutional reports from seven EU member states. Plant Biotechnol Rep, 13(5):473-482.

[54]MitchellPD, BrownZ, McRobertsN, 2018. Economic issues to consider for gene drives. J Responsible Innov, 5(S1):S180-S202.

[55]MyskjaBK, MyhrAI, 2020. Non-safety assessments of genome-edited organisms: should they be included in regulation? Sci Eng Ethics, 26(5):2601-2627.

[56]NawazS, SatterfieldT, 2022. Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing. PLoS ONE, 17(3):e0265635.

[57]NawazS, KlassenS, LyonA, 2020. Tensions at the boundary: rearticulating ‘organic’ plant breeding in the age of gene editing. Elementa Sci Anthrop, 8:34.

[58]PrestonCJ, AntonsenT, 2021. Integrity and agency: negotiating new forms of human-nature relations in biotechnology. Environ Ethics, 43(1):21-41.

[59]QaimM, 2020. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Appl Econ Perspect Policy, 42(2):129-150.

[60]QuistD, ChapelaIH, 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414(6863):541-543.

[61]Research and Markets, 2021. Agricultural Biotechnology Market Research Report 2021. researchandmarkets.‍com. https://www.‍researchandmarkets.‍com/reports/4470325/agricultural-biotechnology-market-research#src-pos-9

[62]RippeKP, WillemsenA, 2018. The idea of precaution: ethical requirements for the regulation of new biotechnologies in the environmental field. Front Plant Sci, 9:1868.

[63]RobbinsM, CalabreseC, FeatherstoneJD, et al., 2021. Understanding knowledge and perceptions of genome editing technologies: a textual analysis of major agricultural stakeholder groups. JCOM J Sci Commun, 20(5):A07.

[64]SchmidtSM, BelisleM, FrommerWB, 2020. The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture. EMBO Rep, 21(6):e50680.

[65]SelfaT, LindbergS, BainC, 2021. Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States: tensions, contestations, and realignments. Elem Sci Anth, 9(1):00153.

[66]SER, 2020. Working Together for Sustainable Supply Chain Impact: Futureproof Policy for International RBC. Social and Economic Council, Hague, the Netherlands, p.1-52.

[67]ShipmanEN, YuJW, ZhouJQ, et al., 2021. Can gene editing reduce postharvest waste and loss of fruit, vegetables, and ornamentals? Hortic Res, 8:1.

[68]SiebertR, HerzigC, BirringerM, 2022. Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling. Agric Human Values, 39(2):617-632.

[69]StokstadE, 2021. Thaw coming for U.K. gene-editing regulations: government expected to loosen rules for some biotech crops and animals. Science, 372(6545):895.

[70]TanksleySD, McCouchSR, 1997. Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science, 277(5329):1063-1066.

[71]ThompsonPB, 2021. Food system transformation and the role of gene technology: an ethical analysis. Ethics Int Aff, 35(1):35-49.

[72]TorgersenH, 2009. Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Syst Synth Biol, 3(1-4):9-17.

[73]United Nations, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. The United Nations, New York, USA.

[74]van de Water JAJM, Tignat-PerrierR, AllemandD, et al., 2022. Coral holobionts and biotechnology: from Blue Economy to coral reef conservation. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 74:‍110-121.

[75]van de WouwM, van HintumT, KikC, et al., 2010. Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta analysis. Theor Appl Genet, 120(6):1241-1252.

[76]van de WouwM, van TreurenR, van HintumT, 2013. A historical analysis of diversity trends in French and Dutch lettuce cultivars. Euphytica, 190(2):229-239.

[77]VieiraLR, FreitasNC, JustenF, et al., 2021. Regulatory framework of genome editing in Brazil and worldwide. In: Molinari HBC, Vieira LR, Silva NV, et al. (Eds.), CRISPR Technology in Plant Genome Editing. Embrapa, Brasilia, p.169-195.

[78]WhelanAI, LemaMA, 2015. Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food, 6(4):253-265.

[79]WhelanAI, GuttiP, LemaMA, 2020. Gene editing regulation and innovation economics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 8:303.

[80]Wray-CahenD, BodnarA, RexroadIII C, et al., 2022. Advancing genome editing to improve the sustainability and resiliency of animal agriculture. CABI Agric Biosci, 3:21.

[81]YangY, HobbsJE, 2020. Supporters or opponents: will cultural values shape consumer acceptance of gene editing? J Food Prod Mark, 26(1):17-37.

[82]ZhangH, ZhangJS, LangZB, et al., 2017. Genome editing-principles and applications for functional genomics research and crop improvement. Crit Rev Plant Sci, 36(4):291-309.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE