Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Via a historical reconstruction, this paper primarily demonstrates how the societal debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) gradually extended in terms of actors involved and concerns reflected. It is argued that the implementation of recombinant DNA technology out of the laboratory and into civil society entailed a “complex of concerns.” In this complex, distinctions between environmental, agricultural, socio-economic, and ethical issues proved to be blurred. This fueled the confusion between the wider debate on genetic modification and the risk assessment of transgenic crops in the European Union. In this paper, the lasting skeptical and/or ambivalent attitude of Europeans towards agro-food biotechnology is interpreted as signaling an ongoing social request – and even a quest – for an evaluation of biotechnology with Sense and Sensibility. In this (re)quest, a broader-than-scientific dimension is sought for that allows addressing the GMO debate in a more “sensible” way, whilst making “sense” of the different stances taken in it. Here, the restyling of the European regulatory frame on transgenic agro-food products and of science communication models are discussed and taken to be indicative of the (re)quest to move from a merely scientific evaluation and risk-based policy towards a socially more robust evaluation that takes the “non-scientific” concerns at stake in the GMO debate seriously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abels G. (2005) The Long and Winding Road from Asilomar to Brussels: Science, Politics and the Public in Biotechnology Regulation. Science as Culture 14:339–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri M. A. (2005). The Myth of Coexistence: Why Transgenic Crops are not Compatible with Agroecologically Based Systems of Production. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 25:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Andow D. A., C. Zwahlen (2006) Assessing Environmental Risks of Transgenic Plants. Ecology Letters 9:196–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Barinaga M. (2000) Asilomar Revisited: Lessons for Today? Science 287:1584–1585

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U. (1999), World Risk Society. Malden MA: Polity

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman V., F. W. A. Brom (2007) Ethical Tools to Support Systematic Public Deliberations about the Ethical Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg P., M. Singer (1995) The Recombinant DNA Controversy: Twenty Years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:9011–9013

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg P., D. Baltimore, H. W. Boyer, S. N. Cohen, R. W. Davis, D. S. Hogness, D. Nathans, R. Robin, J. D. Watson, S. Weissman, N. D. Zinder (1974) Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules. Science 185:303

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg P., D. Baltimore, S. Brenner, R. O. Roblin, M. F. Singer (1975) Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 72:1981–1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan M. W., R. B. Flavell, M. D. Chilton (1983) A Chimaeric Antibiotic Resistance Gene as a Selectable Marker for Plant Cell. Nature 304:184–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodmer W. (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C., P. B. Joly, and C. Marris (in press), “Disentrenching Experiment? The Construction of GM-crop Field Trials as a Social Problem in France.” Science, Technology and Human Values

  • Bradford K. J., A. Van Deynze, N. Gutterson, W. Parrott, S. H. Strauss (2005) Regulating Transgenic Crops Sensibly: Lessons from Plant Breeding, Biotechnology and Genomics. Nature Biotechnology 23:439–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Brom F. W. A. (2000) Food, Consumer Concerns, and Trust: Food Ethics for a Globalizing Market. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12:127–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi M. (1998) Science and the Media. Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London/New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr S. (2002) Ethical and Value-based Aspects of the European Commission’s Precautionary Principle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S. N., A. C. Y. Chang, H. W. Boyer, R. B. Helling (1973), Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids in␣vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 70:3240–3244

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook G., E. Pieri, P. T. Robbins (2004) The Scientists Think and the Public Feels: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food. Discourse & Society 15:433–449

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries R. (2006) Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19:469–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Deblonde M., P. du Jardin (2005) Deepening a Precautionary European Policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:319–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Deckers J. (2005) Are Scientists Right and Non-scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18:451–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos Y., D. Reheul, A. De Schrijver, F. Cors, W. Moens (2004) Management of Herbicide-tolerant Oilseed Rape in Europe: A Case Study on Minimizing Vertical Gene Flow. Environmental Biosafety Research 3:135–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos Y., D. Reheul, A. De Schrijver (2005) The Co-existence between Transgenic and Non-transgenic Maize in the European Union: A Focus on Pollen Flow and Cross-fertilization. Environmental Biosafety Research 4:71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., D. Reheul, D. De Waele, and L. Van Speybroeck (2006), “The Interplay Between Societal Concerns and the Regulatory Frame on GM Crops in the European Union.” Environmental Biosafety Research 5, pp. 127–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., D. Reheul, O. Thas, E. M. De Clercq, M. Cougnon, and K. Cordemans (2007), “Implementing Isolation Perimeters around Genetically Modified Maize Fields. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27, pp. 155–165

  • Dornan C. (1990) Some Problems in Conceptualizing the Issue of Science and the Media. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7:48–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006), Report on the Implementation of National Measures on the Co-existence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm

  • European Food Safety Authority (2006), Transparency in Risk Assessment Carried Out by EFSA: Guidance Document on Procedural Aspects. EFSA Journal, 353:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G., J. Durant (1995) The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 4:57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M. L., J. L. Holup (2005) Psychosocial and Cultural Factors Affecting the Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Food: An Overview of the Literature. Social Science & Medicine 60:1603–1612

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraley R. T., S. G. Rogers, R. B. Horsch, P. R. Sanders, J. S. Flick, S. P. Adams, M. L. Bittner, L. A. Brand, C. L. Fink, J. S. Fry, G. R. Galluppi, S. B. Goldberg, N.L. Hoffmann, S. C. Woo (1983), Expression of Bacterial Genes in Plant Cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 80:4803–4807

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg W. R. (1996) Risky Thinking: Irrational Fears about Risk and Society. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545:44–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer L., J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman, K. G. Berdal (2004) Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Food. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42:1181–1193

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S. O., J. R. Ravetz (1994) Uncertainty, Complexity and Post-normal Science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1881–1885

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson W. A., A. Modigliani (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology 95:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, C. Corchero, C. Fischler, J. Hampel, J.␣Jackson, N. Kronberger, N. Mejlgaard, G. Revuelta, C. Schreiner, S. Stares, H.␣Torgersen, and W. Wagner (2006), Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Eurobarometer 64.3. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf

  • Genus A., A. M. Coles (2005) On Constructive Technology Assessment and Limitations on Public Participation in Technology Assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17:433–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R., J. Flynn, P. Slovic (2001) Technological Stigma. in J. Flynn, P. Slovic, H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma. Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London/Sterling VA: Earthscan, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross A. G. (1994) The Roles of Rhetoric in the Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science 3:3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutteling J., O. Wiegman (1996) Exploring Risk Communication. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk R., A. Irwin (2006) Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Halller S. F., J. Gerrie (2007) The Role of Science in Public Policy: Higher Reason, or Reason for Hire? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20:139–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy S. (1999) Extended Peer Communities and the Ascendance of Post-normal Politics. Futures 31:655–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller C. (2002) From Scientific Risk to paysan Savoir-faire: Peasant Expertise in the French and Global Debate Over GM Crops. Science as Culture 11:5–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Estrella L., A. Depicker, M. Van Montagu, J. Schell (1983) Expression of Chimaeric Genes Transferred into Plant Cells Using a Ti-plasmid Derived Vector. Nature 303:209–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh R., H. Gottweis (2005) Recombinant Regulation: The Asilomar Legacy 30 years on. Science as Culture 14:299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst M. (2007) Public Expectations of Gene Therapy: Scientific Futures and Their Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship. Science, Technology & Human Values 32:150–171

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2000), Science and Society: Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. HMSO, HL Paper 38

  • Hughes S. S. (2001) Making Dollars Out of DNA. The First Major Patent in Biotechnology and the Commercialization of Molecular Biology, 1974–1980. Isis 92:541–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A. (2006) The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‹New’ Scientific Governance. Social Studies of Science 36:299–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A., W. Wyne (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S. (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41:223–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K. K. (2006) Conflict Over Risks in Food Production: A Challenge for Democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19:269–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K. K., P. Sandøe (2002), Food Safety and Ethics: The Interplay between Science and Values. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:245–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K. K., C. Gamborg, K. H. Madsen, R. B. Jørgensen, M. KrayervonKrauss, A. P. Folker, P. Sandøe (2003) Making the EU ‹Risk Window’ Transparent: the Normative Foundation of Risk Assessment of GMOs. Environmental Biosafety Research 3:161–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K. L., A. F. Raybould, M. D. Hudson, G. M. Poppy (2007) How Does Scientific Risk Assessment of GM Crops Fit within the Wider Risk Analysis? Trends in Plant Science 12:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson M. (2003) Ethics of Sustainable Development - a Study of Swedish Regulations for Genetically Modified Organisms. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16:51–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson R. E., J. X. Kasperson (1996) The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545:95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson R. E., N. Jhaveri, J. X. Kasperson (2001) Stigma and the Social Amplification of Risk: Toward a Framework of Analysis. in J. Flynn, P. Slovic, H. Kunreuther (eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma. Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London/Sterling VA: Earthscan, pp 9–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S. (2005) From Asilomar to Industrial Biotechnology: Risks, Reductionism and Regulation. Science as Culture 14:309–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohn W., J. Weyer (1994) Society as a Laboratory: The Societal Risks of Experimental Research. Science and Public Policy 21:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen J., A. Jamison (2006) Genetic Technologies Meet the Public: The Discourses of Concern. Science. Technology & Human Values 31:8–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen J., K. H. Madsen, P. Sandøe (2002) Ethics and Genetic Engineering - Lessons to be Learned from GM Foods. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 24:263–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L. (2001) Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science 31:842–874

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L. (2006) EU Agbiotech Regulation. Soziale Technik 3:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L., J. Bijman (2002) Farm Inputs under Pressure from the European Food Industry. Food Policy 27:31–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. and K. Boschert (in press), Coexistence or Contradictions? GM Crops Versus Alternative Agricultures in Europe. Geoforum doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum. 2007.01.001

  • Levidow L., S. Carr (2007) GM Crops on Trial: Technological Development as a Real-world Experiment. Futures 39:408–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L., C. Marris (2001) Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology. Science and Public Policy 28:345–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L., S. Carr, D. Wield (2005) European Union Regulation of Agri-biotechnology: Precautionary Links between Science, Expertise and Policy. Science and Public Policy 32:261–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey N., M. W. Kamara, E. Jelsøe, A. T. Mortensen (2001) Changing Frames: The Emergence of Ethics in European Policy on Biotechnology. Notizie di Politeia XVII:80–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt R., L. Frewer (1998) Risk and Modern Society. London: Earthscan Reader

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan R. A. (2001) Science Mass Communication. Its Conceptual History. Science Communication 23:135–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen K. H., P. Sandøe (2005) Ethical Reflections on Herbicide-resistant Crops. Pest Management Science 61:318–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden T., R. Sonnino (2005) Rural Development and Agri-food Governance in Europe: Tracing the Development of Alternatives. in V. Higgins, G. Lawrence (eds.), Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the New Politics of Regulation London: Routledge pp. 50–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris C. (2001) Public Views on GMOs: Deconstructing the Myths. EMBO reports 2:545–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeseele P. A. (2007) Science and Technology in a Mediatized and Democratized Society. Journal of Science Communication 6:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer S., A. Stirling (2002) Finding a Precautionary Approach to Technological Developments – Lessons for the Evaluation of GM Crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • McQuail D. (2006) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. European Journal of Communication 20:266–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Mepham B. (2000) A Framework for the Ethical Analysis of Novel Foods: The Ethical Matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12:165–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhr A. I., T. Traavik (2003) Sustainable Development and Norwegian Genetic Engineering Regulations: Applications, Impacts and Challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16:317–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen T. H., S. F. Berg (2001) Goethe’s Homunclus and Shelley’s Monster on the Romantic Prototypes of Modern Biotechnology. Notizie di Politeia XVII:37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H. (2003) Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30:151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Petsko, G. A. (2002), “An Asilomar Moment.” Genome Biology, 3, comment 1014.1–1014.3

  • Power M., L. S. McCarty (2006) Environmental Risk Management Decision-making in a Societal Context. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 12:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Savadori L., S. Savio, E. Nicotra, R. Rumiati, M. Finucane, P. Slovic (2004) Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24:1289–1299

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot J., A. Rip (1996) The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, D., P. A. Maeseele, and H. Verstraeten (2006, May), Biotech, Public Opinion and the Popular Press: Frankenstein’s Copycat Soldiers at War? Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science & Technology, Scientific Culture for Global Citizenship, COEX, Seoul

  • Shaw A. (2002) It Just Goes Against the Grain. Public Understandings of Genetically Modified (GM) Food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 11:273–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M. (2000) The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Analysis 20:195–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer M., D. Soll (1973) Letter from the Members of the Gordon Conference to the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. Science 181:1114

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer M., P. Berg (1976) Recombinant DNA: NIH Guidelines. Science 193:186–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P. (1987) Perception of Risk. Science 236:280–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, D. G. MacGregor (2004) Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feeling: Some Thought about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis 24:311–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiffer R., A. Rubel (2004) Democratic Principles and Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Modified Food. Public Affairs Quarterly 18:223–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiffer R., T. Hedemann (2005) The Political Import of Intrinsic Objections to Genetically Engineered Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18:191–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedje J. M., R. K. Colwell, Y. L. Grossman, R. E. Hodson, R. E. Lenski, R. N. Mack, P. L. Regal (1989) The Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recommendations. Ecology 70:298–315

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sluijs J. P. (2007) Uncertainty and Precaution in Environmental Management: Insights from the UPEM Conference. Environmental Modelling & Software 22:590–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog H., M. Matze, E. L. Van Bueren, T. Baars (2003) The Role of the Concept of the Natural (Naturalness) in Organic Farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16:29–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandall B. (2004) Values in Science and Risk Assessment. Toxicology Letters 152:265–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson J. D., J. Tooze (1981) The DNA Story - a Documentary History of Gene Cloning. San Francisco: WH Freeman & Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh R., D. Ervin (2006) Precaution as an Approach to Technology Development: The Case of Transgenic Crops. Science Technology & Human Values 31:153–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh R., L. Glenna (2006) Considering the Role of the University in Conducting Research on Agri-biotechnologies. Social Studies of Science 36:929–942

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon W., J. Stilgoe (2005) The Public Value of Science. London: Demos

    Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff D., S. Jasanoff, L. Busch, R. Grove-White, B. Wynne (2005) Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law. The Yale Journal of International Law 30:81–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S. (1986) Recombinant DNA Technology and its Social Transformation, 1972–1982. Osiris 2nd Series 2:303–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B. (1992) Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science 1:281–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B. (1995) Public Understanding of Science. in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oakes/London/New Delhi: Sage, pp 361–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B. (2001) Expert Discourses of Risks and Ethics on Genetically Manipulated Organisms: The Weaving of Public Alienation. Notizie di Politeia XVII:51–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is financially supported by the Ghent University (GOA Project N° 01GA0105). Linda Van Speybroeck is a FWO Postdoctoral Fellow. We thank Didier Breyer, Nicolas de Sadeleer, Adinda De Schrijver, Marian Deblonde, Lieve Goorden, Dirk Holemans, Shane Morris, Gertrudis Van de Vijver, and Willy Weyns for inspiring discussions. Thanks and appreciation is also extended to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium

    Yann Devos & Dirk Reheul

  2. Department of Communication Studies, Faculty of Political and Social Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Pieter Maeseele

  3. Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Centre for Critical Philosophy, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Linda Van Speybroeck & Danny De Waele

Authors
  1. Yann Devos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pieter Maeseele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Reheul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Van Speybroeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Danny De Waele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Devos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Devos, Y., Maeseele, P., Reheul, D. et al. Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility . J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 29–61 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9057-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9057-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation