Balancing technological innovation with social values remains an important, if understudied, topic for contemporary political theory. This paper explores the question of how clever but disruptive technologies like the gene-editing tool CRISPR can solve challenging technical problems while adhering to democratic values and governance. Like most tools, CRISPR can enhance human life or diminish it. We therefore need a way of distinguishing between virtuous and vicious technological goals. In short, we need to make CRISPR what I call a phronetic technology: a tool that is developed and deployed toward achieving the social good in ways consistent with democratic values. Honoring democratic values demands broad-based, ongoing public deliberation about how technological innovation contributes to social welfare. I turn to Aristotle to inform that deliberation. Aristotle's distinction between phronēsis (practical wisdom) and the related but problematic quality deinos (cleverness) usefully captures the difference between phronetic technologies and their merely clever alternatives. By showing how phronēsis both aligns cleverness with social values and encourages civic engagement on questions of technological development, I argue that Aristotle offers a middle path between reckless innovation and reactionary conservatism.
AdelsonJBlacksherEALiKK, et al. (2013) Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: Mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. Journal of Public Deliberation9(1), Article 5.
2.
AlmeidaMRanischR (2022) Beyond safety: Mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9: 39.
3.
Aristotle. (1984a) Metaphysics (trans. Ross WD). In: BarnsJ (ed) The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1552–1728.
4.
Aristotle. (1984b) Rhetoric (trans. Rhys W). In: BarnsJ (ed) The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2152–2151.
BergP (2008) Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature455(18): 290–291.
8.
BickfordS (2011) Emotion talk and political judgment. The Journal of Politics73(4): 1025–1037.
9.
BogaertBJoxR (2023) It takes two to Tango: Fostering engagement within citizen juries. The American Journal of Bioethics23(12): 88–90.
10.
BostromN (2005) In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics19(3): 1–30.
11.
BovenkerkB (2012) The Biotechnology Debate: Democracy in the Face of Intractable Disagreement. London: Springer.
12.
BrennanJ (2016) Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
BuchthalJEvansSWLunshofJ, et al. (2019) Mice against ticks: An experimental community-guided effort to prevent tick-borne disease by altering the shared environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B374: 20180105.
14.
CammackD (2013) Aristotle on the virtue of the multitude. Political Theory14(2): 175–202.
15.
CappsBChadwickRJolyY, et al. (2017) Falling giants and the rise of gene-editing: Ethics, private interests and the public good. Human Genomics11(20): 1–10.
16.
CarrollDCharoRA (2015) The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biology16: 242–251.
17.
CwikB (2020) Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene-editing. British Journal of Medical Ethics46: 183–187.
18.
DoudnaJCharpentierE (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science346(6213): 1077–1087.
19.
DryzekJSNicolDNiemeverS, et al. (2020) Global citizen deliberation on genome editing. Science369(6510): 1435–1437.
20.
DryzekJSTuckerA (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review68(5): 864–876.
21.
DunneJ (1993) Back to the Rough Ground: ‘Phronesis’ and ‘Techne’ in Modern Philosophy and in Aristotle. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
22.
FishkinJSCranW (2011) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
FoxD (2007) Silver spoons and golden genes: Genetic engineering and the egalitarian ethos. American Journal of Law & Medicine33: 567–623.
24.
FrankJ (2005) A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
FrickerM (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
FukuyamaF (2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
27.
GadamerHG (1975) Hermeneutics and social science. Philosophy & Social Criticism2(4): 307–316.
28.
GadamerHG (2013) Truth and Method (trans. Weinsheimer J and Marshall DG). London: Bloomsbury.
29.
GarstenB (2006) Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
GonzalezWJ (2015) The role of values in the configuration of technology: From axiology to ethics. In: GonzalezWJ (ed) New Perspectives on Technology, Values, and Ethics. New York: Springer, 3–27.
31.
GreelyHT (2021) CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
GustonDH (2014) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance.’Social Studies of Science44(2): 218–242.
HabermasJ (1998) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (trans. Rehg W). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
HabermasJ (2003) The Future of Human Nature (trans. Rehg W, Pensky M and Beister H). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
36.
HalsteadILewisGL (2020) Understanding opposition to human gene-editing: A role for pathogen disgust sensitivity?Politics and the Life Sciences39(2): 154–166.
37.
HeideggerM (2000) An Introduction to Metaphysics (trans. Fried G and Polt R). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
HessDJ (2016) Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
HonigB (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40.
HurlbutJBSahaKJasanoffS (2015) CRISPR democracy: Gene-editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology32(1): 25–32.
41.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
JasanoffSHurlbutJBSahaK, et al. (2019) Democratic governance of human germline genome editing. The CRISPR Journal2: 266–271.
43.
JinekMChylinskiKFontaraI, et al. (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science337(6096): 816–821.
44.
KassL (2008) Defending human dignity. In: President’s Council on Bioethics. (ed) Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC: The President’s Council on Bioethics, 297–332.
45.
KnightA (2023) Gene-editing technologies, utopianism, and disability politics. The Journal of Philosophy of Disability3: 93–115.
46.
LedfordH (2015) CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature522(7544): 20–24.
47.
LuckyMC (2023) Knowledge-making in politics: Expertise in democracy and epistocracy. Political Theory52(3): 431–548.
48.
LyotardJF (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (trans. Bennington G and Massumi B). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
49.
NebloMWhiteA (2023) Varieties of citizen engagement in deliberation about biotechnology. American Journal of Bioethics23(12): 90–92.
50.
NelsonJPSelinCIScottCT (2021) Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: A critical review of scholarly governance discourse. Journal of Responsible Innovation8(3): 382–420.
51.
NewellP (2010) Democratising biotechnology? Deliberation, participation and social regulation in a neo-liberal world. Review of International Studies36(2): 471–491.
PottleJ (2025) Democratic equality beyond deliberation. American Political Science Review119(2): 905–916.
58.
RawlsJ (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
59.
ReeveCDC (2012) Aristotle’s philosophical method. In: ShieldsC (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 150–170.
60.
RudermanR (1997) Aristotle and the recovery of political judgment. The American Political Science Review91(2): 409–420.
61.
SandelM (2002) The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
ScheinermanN (2023) Public engagement through inclusive deliberation: The human genome international commission and citizens’ juries. American Journal of Bioethics23(12): 66–76.
63.
ScheufeleDKrauseNMFreilingIBrossardD. (2021) What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. PNAS118(22): 1–8.
64.
SchwartzAM (2024) Political Phantasies: Aristotle on imagination and collective action. American Journal of Political Science68(3): 861–873.
65.
SchwartzbergM (2015) Epistemic democracy and its challenges. Annual Review of Political Science18: 187–203.
66.
SchwartzbergM (2016) Aristotle and the judgment of the many: Equality, not collective quality. Journal of Politics73(3): 733–745.
67.
Sophocles. (2013) Antigone. In: GreneDLattimoreR (eds) Sophocles I. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
TabachnickD (2004) Phronesis, democracy and technology. The Canadian Journal of Political Science37(4): 997–1016.
70.
VallorS (2016) Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. New York: Oxford University Press.
71.
WaldronJ (1995) The wisdom of the multitude: Some reflections on book 3, chapter 11 of Aristotle’s politics. Political Theory23(4): 563–584.
72.
WaltzMFlattMAJuengstETConleyJMCadiganRJ (2024) Public participation in human genome editing research governance: What do scientists think?Journal of Community Genetics15(3): 249–257.
73.
WarrenMGastilJ (2015) Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship?The Journal of Politics77(2): 562–574.
74.
WestWBuchmanLMedinaR (2022) Public deliberation and the regulation of gene drive in the USA. Science and Public Policy49: 843–852.
75.
WilsonJ (2011) Deliberation, democracy, and the rule of reason in Aristotle’s Politics. The American Political Science Review105(2): 259–274.
76.
WintherH (2024) Artifishial: Naturalness and the CRISPR-salmon. Agriculture and Human Values41: 1211–1221.
77.
YackB (2006) Rhetoric and public reasoning: An Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Political Theory34(4): 417–438.
78.
YoungIM (2001) Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory29(5): 670–690.
