Identifying Māori perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand

Māori perspectives on gene technologies are evolving, and traditional cultural constructs continue to inform a wide diversity of views. Here we summarise a series of research activities aimed at identifying evolving Māori perspectives on gene editing and how these inform engagement at the co-innovation interface.

I agree with the authors that "This series of described research activities represent the most comprehensive collection of 322 qualitative and quantitative data about Māori perspectives on gene editing to date".The amount of data that appears to have been compiled should be a source of much valuable insight that can still be mined.Unfortunately, this manuscript does that body of work a disservice by not being adequately used in this manuscript.The data analysis methods are not described, and are not used to support the many conclusions that are drawn.I would hope, that the authors would have used existing methods of textual analysis to derive quantitative data and then use them to substantiate their many statements.I see no quantitative analysis of any of their results, but rather the manuscript is more of an intuitive description of the results.This approach does not allow the reader to be convinced that their conclusions are in any way supported.
My other objection then is that the "findings" are not used to connect with the conclusions at the end of the paper.These seem disconnected.Therefore, the insights gained by the research don't obviously lead to the conclusions.
I have made several comments in the manuscript to provide more detailed examples of what I mean.
For the reasons I have described above, I regretfully must recommend rejection of the paper.The subject matter is highly interesting though, and I encourage the authors to write a more data-based, scientifically defensible paper.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): This paper attempts to answer a very specific and geographically targeted question on perceptions and viewpoints of Maori people of New Zealand toward genomics and genome editing technologies.While the output is likely of relevance to inform further communications efforts and policy approaches in very specific geographies, several points can be raised about the structure and contents of the paper.
(a) The mixing of terminology between genomics and genome editing likely creates significant confusion given genomics is much more general tools used in breeding programs while genome editing is -at the time -more limited in application and scope.It is likely adding noise to any result by conflating these two terms.
(b) The authors present several methods (events/surveys/conferences) in which they attempt to discern attitudes and perceptions of the technologies (both genomics and genome editing) but little is done to try and synthesize findings across all these events (either quantitatively or qualitatively) that can specifically inform any further actions on the political or regulatory dimensions beyond fairly high level comments to "ensure all communities viewpoints and concerns are heard" and the viewpoint that "commercializations or for profit activities" generate negative reactions.
(c) Lastly, the section delving into "developing a precautionary approach to genomics" seems to steer away from the purpose of the paper in ascertaining perspectives of certain population segment and moves into authors on views on certain policy and ideological approaches.
In summary, the conclusions and discussion need to be clearly and more tangible to inform future actions by -for example -those tasked with developing policy or community engagement schemes to help elevate the utility of this paper.

Co-Innovation Reviewers' Feedback
Reviewer 1: Remarks to Author

Reviewer remarks
Author Response I agree with the authors that "This series of described research activities represent the most comprehensive collection of 322 qualitative and quantitative data about Māori perspectives on gene editing to date".
The amount of data that appears to have been compiled should be a source of much valuable insight that can still be mined.
Unfortunately, this manuscript does that body of work a disservice by not being adequately used in this manuscript.
The data analysis methods are not described and are not used to support the many conclusions that are drawn.
I would hope that the authors would have used existing methods of textual analysis to derive quantitative data and then use them to substantiate their many statements.I see no quantitative analysis of any of their results, but rather the manuscript is more of an intuitive description of the results.This approach does not allow the reader to be convinced that their conclusions are in any way supported.
I have made several comments in the manuscript to provide more detailed examples of what I mean.
For the reasons I have described above, I regretfully must recommend rejection of the paper.The subject matter is highly interesting though, and I encourage the authors to write a more data-based, scientifically defensible paper.
My other objection then is that the "findings" are not used to Amendments made to the conclusion to address this comment connect with the conclusions at the end of the paper.These seem disconnected.Therefore, the insights gained by the research don't obviously lead to the conclusions.
Reviewer 1: Specific in-text comments Line Critique Provided Authors' Response 55 I'd like to see a better rationale for using these methods, especially III, V, VII and VIII, for those such as this reviewer, who is not familiar with the cultural significance of the terms used.Do they have specific cultural meanings or implications about the way these events are carried out that could be important to the reader for a more complete understanding of these activities?
III. are simply interviews.We have removed the reference to Whitimaia which was the group that conducted them.
V. was a workshop targeting specific Māori with expertise and experience on the topic hence the description as thought-leaders.The use of wānanga for activity VII and hui for activity VIII reflects the need to provide a culturally appropriate frame for the discussions.VII was a workshop that explored culturally grounded sense making of the results emerging from previous activities.VIII was a meeting with key informants focused on use of gene editing in the primary sector.

57
Were there any standardized procedurs for conducting the reviews?What types of literature were included?Were any criteria applied to either including or rejecting publications?
Inserted (Hudson et al, 2019)  sampled 830 respondents …' Were these yes/no questions asked during the survey?I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "79% indicated a higher level of support for pest control" Not room to summarise paper in such detail -it has been cited should readers wish for more info.
Revised to read 'a higher level of support for pest control than for other applications.'What does this mean quantitatively?Did the members of these groups agree that these considerations were the three terms were the most important, based on a ranking exercise they were asked to do?
There are only two, not three terms identified and the words 'a majority of respondents ... identified' should be clear.Refined to read 'A majority of respondents … identified taonga species as an important Māori value, followed by kaitiakitanga, consistent with findings from Research Elements I and III above.'Data from the survey please Added "The survey findings indicate that, despite continuing scepticism ....." Is this the authors' explanation or based on data from the survey?
Opening sentence is not 'data from the survey'-it is an accepted generic understanding of the science at this stage, although subsequent sentence ('for majority of Māori surveyed') clearly refers to the survey.
Reworded 'It is generally accepted that gene editing offers an increased level of control that, while not absolute, provides more defined benefits and clarity about risks.'

Developing a Precautionary Approach for Genomics'
Now reads 'Wider AoNZ is also undertaking the process of determining a regulatory approach for genomics.Regulation of GM technologies has long been informed by the Precautionary Principle…' Re 'adding heft' to lines 383-384, I decided (given this repositioning of sections) that all that was needed was to add 'following' to the existing text and to remove 'below', so -Changed 'The Royal Society of New Zealand conclusions below are consistent with the themes that emerged from our research activities:' to 'The following Royal Society of New Zealand conclusions are consistent with the themes that emerged from our research activities: ' … very minor, but it works.

Reviewer Remarks Author Response
This paper attempts to answer a very specific and geographically targeted question on perceptions and viewpoints of Maori people of New Zealand toward genomics and genome editing technologies.While the output is likely of relevance to inform further communications efforts and policy approaches in very specific geographies, several points can be raised about the structure and contents of the paper.
(a) The mixing of terminology between genomics and genome editing likely creates significant confusion given genomics is much more general tools used in breeding programs while genome editing is -at the time -more limited in application and scope.It is likely adding noise to any result by conflating these two terms Across the course of the project and the multi-level nature of the discussions, we used both terms, according to the circumstances of each study element.Given the distance between community understanding of gene editing and scientific practice we often combined without conflating the two concepts.
In some meetings the genomic research was used as context for discussions on gene editing, in other cases it was the natural extension of genomics to genetic modification and gene editing.
(b) The authors present several methods (events/surveys/conferences) in which they attempt to discern attitudes and perceptions of the technologies (both genomics and genome editing) but little is done to try and synthesize findings across all these events (either quantitatively or qualitatively) that can specifically inform any further actions on the political or regulatory dimensions beyond fairly high level comments to "ensure all communities viewpoints and concerns are heard" and the viewpoint that "commercializations or for profit activities" generate negative reactions.
A strong 'synthesis' is that a precautionary approach (based on identified values) should 'specifically inform further actions in the political or regulatory dimensions'.
The paper does not claim that 'commercialisations or for-profit activities' generate negative reactions' as an overall outcome.
(c) Lastly, the section delving into "developing a precautionary approach to genomics" seems to steer away from the purpose of the paper in ascertaining perspectives of certain population The paper summarises a range of discrete studies and workshops, from which aggregate we have identified a consistent theme that includes a desire for a precautionary segment and moves into authors on views on certain policy and ideological approaches.
approach.It is important that the authors provide some thoughts on the implications of the identified perspectives on policy making.
Intro now reads: 'A growing body of literature addresses the need for more agile, participatory regulation in the biotech era (Kormos et al, 2021;Hartley et al, 2022;Kjeldaas et al, 2022).
There is increasing recognition of the transferability of Māorifocused approaches to other indigenous communities and society in general (Walker et al, 2019).' 2nd para of Conclusion amended to include: 'Regulatory dynamism and flexibility in form, coupled with 'bottom-up' community engagement are oft-cited aspirations for emerging policy directions.A need for international regulatory integration is obvious, but the risk is that global-focused criteria may exclude indigenous values as mere minority concerns.Diverse interests seek practical integration tools for evolving biotechnologies -this reality underpins the reasonable concerns expressed in varying ways throughout this research.A tikangabased precautionary framework thus has potential both to safeguard specific indigenous interests and values and to more generally inform international standards in gene-tech regulation.' Emailed overview from Editor:

Editor comments Author response
We hope you will find the referees' comments useful as you decide how to proceed.Should further experimental data or We thank the reviewers for their considered comments analysis allow you to address these criticisms, we would be happy to look at a substantially revised manuscript.However, please bear in mind that we will be reluctant to approach the referees again in the absence of major revisions.In particular, please note that the following revisions would be necessary for us to contact our referees again: Please address all the concerns of the reviewers, including their concern that a more analytical approach should be adopted in the manuscript for the purposes of more convincingly showing that the gathered data support the stated conclusions and better synthesizing findings across the different types of methods used.
We have revised the manuscript to improve the narrative, link findings across different research activities, and more convincingly tie the data to the conclusions.
Also, from an editorial perspective, we request that you explicitly mention how this manuscript builds on the pilot study that was published previously (doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00070).
Pilot study informed the quantitative survey and provided themes that were explored in the other interviews and workshops.There is a significantly larger data set included in this manuscript.
Additionally, please note that while we feel strongly that there is a place in our journal for a revised version of the manuscript that addresses both these reviewer and editorial concerns, we are still undecided as to which content type it should be classified as.Therefore, we may end up eventually deciding that the manuscript type should be changed, for example, from a Perspective to a Comment.

Happy to amend as appropriate
Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): My comments relate specifically to the extent to which the authors have addressed original reviewers' remarks.
On reading the revised manuscript, I still consider there is a lack of information on the methods used to analyze the qual data.This specifically relates to data sources III, V, VI, VIII.The common phrase used "feedback included", while a potential data point, does not describe the analytical method used to draw conclusions.
I make this comment with the important caveat that there are innovative qual data analytical methods available which might not appear sufficient to quant researchers (I refer generally to reviewers in this case).Ensuring that the appropriate lens for evaluation is applied here is very important.I do not believe that traditional colonial/Northern/Western approaches to research analysis should be the measure by which this manuscript is evaluated.I believe the manuscript has a unique contribution to make to the literature and the research activities described, as a package, provides a source of valuable information for informing policy development.The one remaining weakness is an insight into how the conversations (qual research activities) were treated, how the information was used, synthesised, made sense of, etc.I would not expect to see language typically applied to quant analysis.I would however expect to see language around more qual measures of robustness, including credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, etc.
I anticipate the authorship team have implicit knowledge of how the data was treated, it just must be made more obvious to the reader.
I also attach some comments where I picked up a couple of typos.

Response to Reviewers' Feedback -Updated
Reviewer 1: Remarks to Author

Close quotation marks completed
Reformat diagram to ensure symmetry completed

Statement about policy innovation noted
Comments from Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): My comments relate specifically to the extent to which the authors have addressed original reviewers' remarks.
On reading the revised manuscript, I still consider there is a lack of information on the methods used to analyze the qual data.This specifically relates to data sources III, V, VI, VIII.The common phrase used "feedback included", while a potential data point, does not describe the analytical method used to draw conclusions.
I make this comment with the important caveat that there are innovative qual data analytical methods available which might not appear sufficient to quant researchers (I refer generally to reviewers in this case).Ensuring that the appropriate lens for evaluation is applied here is very important.I do not believe that traditional colonial/Northern/Western approaches to research analysis should be the measure by which this manuscript is evaluated.I believe the manuscript has a unique contribution to make to the literature and the research activities described, as a package, provides a source of valuable information for informing policy development.The one remaining weakness is an insight into how the conversations (qual research activities) were treated, how the information was used, synthesised, made sense of, etc.I would not expect to see language typically Updated as below.
The outcomes of all the research engagement activities were collated, analysed thematically, compared, and synthesised to illustrate the rich nuances of Māori perspectives on genomics and gene editing.The cultural robustness of our method was in the iterative discussion of results and collaborative sense-making across the series of activities.While this remains qualitative, many other aspects are quantitative, as replicates and numbers show.
Note: The comment nature of this publication means that we are summarising as series of activities into a meta-narrative about how Māori are engaging with debates around gene editing.Two of the activities are based on published material which has been substantive descriptions of the methods but the activities identified here iii,V,VI,VIII were different types of meetings where discussions were held and notes taken.As above the material was analysed thematically (reflected in the key findings of each activity) and these were also discussed with participants are subsequent activities.As such they are culturally robust if applied to quant analysis.I would however expect to see language around more qual measures of robustness, including credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, etc.
I anticipate the authorship team have implicit knowledge of how the data was treated, it just must be made more obvious to the reader.
I also attach some comments where I picked up a couple of typos.
not fully representative.When looked at alongside quantitative data you can see the consistency of the findings and transferability of the results.
Across the course of the project and the multi-level nature of the discussions, we used both terms, according to the circumstances of each study element.Given the distance between community understanding of gene editing and scientific practice we often combined without conflating the two concepts.In some meetings the genomic research was used as context for discussions on gene editing, in other cases it was the natural extension of genomics to genetic modification and gene editing.
and removed the dates of the research timeframe 62 (Not directly critiqued) Remove 'Whitimaia' from subtitle 'III' under 'Methods' and changed to 'Practitioner interviews' in Page 5 title.85 (Not directly critiqued) Replace 'study' with 'element'.Now reads 'Three activities were the foundation of this (previously published) research element (Hudson et al, 2019):' 87 What qualifies them as "key"?(i) now reads 'A review of 38 peer-reviewed papers …'; (ii) reads 'Informant interviews (n = 8); (iii) now reads 'A pilot survey (n = 9) with Māori stakeholders and individuals'.
321-22 Indeed.The data collected must be considerable.I am disappointed that not more was done to formally analyse them, or convey to the reader what was done for analysis Analysis, appropriate to each activity, identified themes that contribute to the narrative of the paper.Within the resources of the project, we were able to complete what has been presented here.