TY - JOUR

T1 - Engagement for genetic modification technologies in conservation: For whom, how, and for what ends?

AU - Nissen, Sylvia

AU - Bülow, Franca

AU - Taitingfong, Riley

AU - Black, Amanda

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Authors

PY - 2025/9

Y1 - 2025/9

N2 - Questions of engagement loom large for the use of genetic modification technologies in conservation. As scientific teams rapidly move towards implementing changes that will fundamentally alter entire species, concerns are regularly raised that associated engagement activities are inadequate. It is therefore vital to take stock of recent social research that critically examines how engagement is being enacted: who is engaged and by whom, how and on what terms, and for whom or what those processes serve. Despite a rise in calls for engagement, our review shows emergent gestures towards engagement by developers and regulators lean strongly towards narrow instrumental approaches that reinforce knowledge hierarchies and existing power imbalances. It contributes to engagement practices that are often vague and tokenistic, and focused on one-way education and snapshots of opinion, rather than mutual reciprocity and dialogue. To counter these undercurrents, our review draws attention to the ways social researchers are seeking to reorient engagement for genetic modification towards its more substantive and democratic possibilities, through articulating process, amplifying plurality, and acknowledging contestation.

AB - Questions of engagement loom large for the use of genetic modification technologies in conservation. As scientific teams rapidly move towards implementing changes that will fundamentally alter entire species, concerns are regularly raised that associated engagement activities are inadequate. It is therefore vital to take stock of recent social research that critically examines how engagement is being enacted: who is engaged and by whom, how and on what terms, and for whom or what those processes serve. Despite a rise in calls for engagement, our review shows emergent gestures towards engagement by developers and regulators lean strongly towards narrow instrumental approaches that reinforce knowledge hierarchies and existing power imbalances. It contributes to engagement practices that are often vague and tokenistic, and focused on one-way education and snapshots of opinion, rather than mutual reciprocity and dialogue. To counter these undercurrents, our review draws attention to the ways social researchers are seeking to reorient engagement for genetic modification towards its more substantive and democratic possibilities, through articulating process, amplifying plurality, and acknowledging contestation.

KW - Conservation

KW - Engagement

KW - Gene drive

KW - Genetic modification

KW - Participation

KW - Social research

KW - Environmental Governance

KW - Environmental planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105013479095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104190

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104190

M3 - Scientific review articles

VL - 171

JO - Environmental Science & Policy

JF - Environmental Science & Policy

SN - 1462-9011

M1 - 104190

ER -