The genome editing technology CRISPR is described as a technological game-changer because of its flexibility and precision, and as an ethical game-changer due to its ability to engineer traits in living organisms without crossing species, avoiding a significant objection to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In salmon farming, applications of CRISPR in breeding hold the promise of handling environmental and fish welfare challenges yet require social acceptance. Adopting an empirical bioethics framework, this stakeholder interview study shows that respecting species borders is important, but not decisive, for acceptance among Norwegian stakeholders. The main objections are based on moral reflections about technology use and outcomes. These reflections combine principles and pragmatic deliberations of moral costs and benefits, suggesting that CRISPR applications with environmentally and ethically significant benefits can be socially acceptable. This indicates that the game-changing potential of CRISPR relies on the characteristics of the editing and the context in which the application takes place.
AfewerkiSAscheFMisundB, et al. (2022) Innovation in the Norwegian aquaculture industry. Reviews in Aquaculture15: 759–771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12755.
2.
BainCLindbergSSelfaT (2020) Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance. Agriculture and Human Values37(2): 265–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09980-9.
3.
BarrettLTOppedalFRobinsonN, et al. (2020) Prevention not cure: a review of methods to avoid sea lice infestations in salmon aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture12(4): 2527–2543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12456.
4.
BartkowskiBTheesfeldIPirscherF, et al. (2018) Snipping around for food: Economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum96: 172–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.017.
5.
BeghinJCGustafsonCR (2021) Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review. Sustainability13(20): 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011348.
6.
BogardJRFarmeryAKLittleDC, et al. (2019) Will fish be part of future healthy and sustainable diets?Lancet Planet Health3(4): e159–e160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30018-X.
BradburyIRBurgetzICoulsonMW, et al. (2020) Beyond hybridization: the genetic impacts of non-reproductive ecological interactions of salmon aquaculture on wild populations. Aquaculture Environment Interactions12: 429–445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00376.
9.
BrinkmannSKvaleS (2014) InterViews - Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3 ed). London, Thousand Oaks, CA, Singapore and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
10.
BruceAB (2017) Frankenfish or fish to feed the world? Scientism and biotechnology regulatory policy. Rural Sociology82(4): 628–663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12146.
11.
BuggeAB (2020) GMO-mat eller ikke. Har det vært endringer i forbrukernes syn på genmodifisert mat fra 2017 til 2020? (GMO food or not. Has there been any changes in consumer views on gene editing from 2017 to 2020?) Report 3 2020, Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, Norway.
De GraeffNJongsmaKRJohnstonJ, et al. (2019) The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature. Philosophical Transactions B: Biological Sciences374: 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106.
17.
De VriesR, 2009. Genetic engineering and our duties to laboratory animals. A theoretical and empirical analysis of the concepts of intrinsic value and animal integrity. PhD Thesis. Radboud University Nijmegen.
18.
FlickU (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4 ed.London, Thousand Oaks, CA, Singapore and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
19.
FrewerLJ (2003) Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology14: 319–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00064-5.
20.
FrewerLJ (2017) Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications. European Review of Agricultural Economics44(4): 683–704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ERAE/JBX007.
21.
FrewerLJLassenJKettlitzB, et al. (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology42(7): 1181–1193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002.
22.
FriedrichsSTakasuYKearnsP, et al. (2019) An overview of regulatory approaches to genome editing in agriculture. Biotechnology Research and Innovation3(2): 208–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biori.2019.07.001.
23.
GaskellGAllansdottirAAllumN, et al. (2011) The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology29(2): 113–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1771.
Gatica-AriasAValdez-MelaraMArrieta-EspinozaG, et al. (2019) Consumer attitudes toward food crops developed by CRISPR/Cas9 in Costa Rica. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)139(2): 417–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01647-x.
26.
GjerrisM (2015) Willed blindness: a discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics28(3): 517–532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-0499-6.
27.
GrefsrudESAndersenLBBjørnPA, et al. (2022) Risikorapport norsk fiskeoppdrett 2022 - Effekter på miljø og dyrevelferd i norsk fiskeoppdrett. (Risk report for Norwegian fish farming. Effects on environment and animal welfare in Norwegian fish farming.) Report, Institute of Marine Research, Norway.
28.
GrunertKGLähteenmäkiLNielsenNA, et al. (2001) Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification—results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference12(8): 527–542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00049-0.
29.
GüralpHSkaftnesmoKOKjærner-SembE, et al. (2020) Rescue of germ cells in dnd crispant embryos opens the possibility to produce inherited sterility in Atlantic salmon. Scientific Reports10(18042): 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74876-2.
30.
HallermanEMDunhamRHoustonRB, et al. (2022) Towards production of genome-edited aquaculture species. Reviews in Aquaculture15(2): 404–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12739.
31.
HesthagenTWienerroitherRBjellandO, et al. (2021) Fisk: Vurdering av laks Salmo salar fra Norge. Rødlista for arter 2021. (Fish: Assessment of salmon Salmo salar from Norway. The red list for species 2021). Report, Artsdatabanken, Norway.
32.
HursthouseR (2012) Virtue ethics and the treatment of animals. In: BeauchampTLFreyRG (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–143.
IvesJDunnMCribbA (2017) Empirical bioethics: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
KaiserM (2009) Ethical aspects of livestock genetic engineering. In: EngelhardMHagenKBoysenM (eds) Genetic Engineering in Livestock: New Applications and Interdsiciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Springer, 91–117.
36.
KamrathCWesanaJJBröringS, et al. (2019) What do we know about chain actors’ evaluation of new food technologies? A systematic review of consumer and farmer studies. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety18(3): 798–816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12442.
37.
LassenJJamisonA (2006) Genetic technologies meet the public: the discourses of concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values31(1): 8–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905280021.
38.
LassenJMadsenKHSandøeP (2002) Ethics and genetic engineering – lessons to be learned from GM foods. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering24(5): 263–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004490100262.
39.
LienME (2015) Becoming Salmon: Aquaculture and the Domestication of a Fish. Oakland: University of California Press.
40.
MagnusTAlmåsRHeggemR (2009) Spis ikke, med mindre helsa eller miljøet blir bedre! Om utviklingen i norske forbrukeres holdninger til genmodifisert mat. Etikk i Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics3(1): 89–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v3i1.1715.
41.
MarquesMCritchleyCRWalsheJ (2014) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: how trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science24(5), 601–618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514542372.
42.
MatsutoMTachikawaM (2022) Implications and lessons from the introduction of genome-edited food products in Japan. Frontiers in Genome Editing4(899154): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.899154.
43.
MiddelveldSMacnaghtenPMeijboomF (2023) Imagined futures for livestock gene editing: Public engagement in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science32(2): 143–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221111900.
NBAB (The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board) (2020) Norske forbrukeres holdninger til genredigering i norsk landbruk og akvakultur (Norwegian consumers attitudes towards gene editing in Norwegian agri- and aquaculture). Report, The Norwegian Biotechnology advisory Board, Norway.
46.
Nofima (2021a) CMSEdit - Genome editing for CMS resistance in salmon. Available at: https://nofima.com/projects/cmsedit/ (accessed 22 March 2023).
47.
Nofima (2021b) CrispResist - Harnessing cross-species variation in sea lice resistance. Available at:https://nofima.no/prosjekt/crispresist/ (accessed 22 March 2023).
48.
OkoliASBlixTMyhrAI, et al. (2021) Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective. Transgenic Research31(1), 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-021-00274-7.
49.
OrmandyEHDaleJGriffinG (2011) Genetic engineering of animals: ethical issues, including welfare concerns. The Canadian Veterinary Journal52(5): 544–50. PMID: 22043080.
50.
PalmerC (2010) Animal Ethics in Context. New York: Columbia University Press.
PerssonKShawD (2015) Empirical methods in animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics28(5): 853–866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9560-0.
53.
SandlerRL (2007) Character and Environment. A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
54.
Schultz-BerginM (2018) Is CRISPR an ethical game-changer?Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics31(2): 219–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9721-z.
SingerP (2009) [1975] Animal Liberation. New York: Harper Collins.
57.
SommersetIWaldeCSJensenBB, et al. (2022) Fiskehelserapporten 2021. (The fish health report 2021). Report, Norwegian Veterinary Institute.
58.
TadichTEscobar-AguirreS (2022) Citizens’ attitudes and perceptions towards genetically modified food in Chile: special emphasis in CRISPR technology. Australian Journal of Veterinary Sciences54(1), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-81322022000100001.
59.
ThompsonPB (2010) Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea. Poultry Science89(4): 814–821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00307.
60.
ThorstadEBForsethTFiskeP (2021) Status of wild Atlantic salmon in Norway. Report, The Norwegian Scientific Advisory Committee for Atlantic salmon, Norway.
61.
VetlesenAJ (2023) Animal Lives and Why They Matter. Milton Park: Routledge.
62.
WargeliusALeiningerSSkaftnesmoKO, et al. (2016) Dnd knockout ablates germ cells and demonstrates germ cell independent sex differentiation in Atlantic salmon. Scientific Reports6(21284): 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21284.
YangYHobbsJE (2020) Supporters or opponents: will cultural values shape consumer acceptance of gene editing?Journal of Food Products Marketing26(1): 17–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1715316.
65.
YunesMCOsório-SantosZKeyserlingkV, et al. (2021) Gene editing for improved animal welfare and production traits in cattle: will this technology be embraced or rejected by the public?Sustainability13(9), 4966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094966.
