People must be at the heart of GMO policies

India’s Supreme Court recently highlighted the right to environmental information while delivering a split verdict on the release of genetically modified mustard. The two-judge bench was divided — one argued against the release of the crop citing insufficient assessment of its health impacts while the other called the conditional approval progressive.

In this July 2024 verdict, the court directed the government to develop a national policy on genetically modified organisms by consulting all stakeholders, including states, independent experts and farmers’ bodies.

The move brings to sharp focus the need for policy to be guided by societal needs and expectations as much as scientific evidence. It shows how crucial wider public engagement is for synthetic biology (SynBio) interventions. After all, SynBio encompasses a suite of transformative technologies that have the potential for unprecedented control over living systems.

How can synthetic biology policy come closer to people?

Public engagement can take various forms, from simple public notifications to actively including peoples' views in policymaking. Understanding how SynBio policy shapes public perception — such as in informed decision-making or risk awareness — can drive more inclusive policymaking.

Transparency, openness, and accountability are key to building the public's trust. Equally important are context, pluralism, and reflexivity, which help ensure a comprehensive understanding of the public.

Transparency is key to responsible science and innovation, demanding clear and honest communication about emerging technologies and their uncertainties. Openness means seeing the public as partners, not as barriers, and allowing them to scrutinize tools and solutions, while encouraging questions and criticism. Accountability ensures that public engagement shapes policy by keeping decision-makers informed of public views.

Gauging the public’s level of scientific knowledge and involving them in open discussions is also a part of these consultations. Instead of dismissing public concerns as irrational and uninformed, this approach seeks a closer understanding, and is amply used in fields like nanotechnology and geoengineering.

Including diverse voices is essential for making robust decisions and potentially reducing backlash. A good engagement strategy means researchers must carefully consider how they frame a technology, science, or public group — what assumptions does the public have, and how might this shape engagement and research?

In the case of GM-mustard, India should encourage a combination of inclusive and protective engagement strategies. Inclusive engagement would improve public input through dialogue and deliberation, awareness and assessment of values, and in co-implementing the policy. Since the GM crops controversy has simmered for over two decades resulting in widespread apprehension about the safety of GM foods, protective engagement could offer guidance on the regulatory change and civil redress.

People may gradually come to terms with such synthetic biology applications. However, concerns over morality and risks may persist. Farmers and consumers may have even lesser control over food systems in future. While the courts will decide on the merits of the case, looming consequences of the climate crisis such as water scarcity, increasing desertification and heat waves necessitate adoption of advanced biotechnological tools to strengthen agriculture and food security. Public endorsement, therefore, will be all the more critical.