1 Introduction

In the coming decades, the agricultural and food industry will face major challenges such as climate change that will affect the cultivation of agricultural crops, for example through more extreme weather conditions [1, 2]. In addition, the food supply of the steadily growing world population must be secured [3]. Also, the European Commission’s goal to make the European Union (EU) economy climate-neutral by 2050 [4] also contributes to the fact that people require a far-reaching transformation to enable a sustainable economy.

1.1 Genetic Engineering as a Potential Tool

Such a sustainable economy, e.g. a bioeconomy, can in part be enabled by innovative, efficient and sustainable technologies. One such technology with high potential – that is even considered necessary by many experts [5] – is genetic engineering (GE). Here, GE refers to those genomic techniques that include gene transfer and gene editing [6]. In the broader debate, its products are often referred to as “genetically modified organisms”, “GMO”, “GM foods”, or pejoratively “genetically manipulated organisms” [7]. Here, the term “genetically engineered” (GE) is used, because “genetically modified” can refer to any type of genetic modification, including conventional breeding [8].

Scientists involved in GE argue that GE and its products can have many beneficial trades: according to numerous scientific studies, GE can greatly increase crop yields and thus create economic opportunities for farmers in poorer countries [9]. One reason for this is its potential to make plants more resistant to environmental stress such as extreme weather conditions like drought [10, 11]. Moreover, GE can increase the soil compatibility of cultivation and protect biodiversity, e.g. by reducing the use of chemical pesticides [9]. It can also be used to develop healthier food. One of the most famous examples is Golden Rice, which is enriched with beta-carotene [12].

Furthermore, an extensive study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [8] concludes that GE crops are not riskier than conventionally produced crops, but have generally favorable social, economic and ecological effects. In addition, among natural scientists, there is almost consensus on the safety of this technology: 88% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) consider GE foods safe to eat [13]. German science academies are also uniformly in favor of the use of GE, for example, the Academies of Sciences Leopoldina or the Berlin-Brandenburg Academies of Sciences [14, 15]. In general, scientific findings convey a positive picture of the effects of GE. For example, in a joint statement, the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the German Research Foundation, and the Union of the German Academies of Sciences report increased yields and income for farmers through GE, as well as reduced pesticide use [16]. Qaim also notes that the technology can contribute substantially to sustainable agriculture and food security [17].

These study results signal that GE can address some of the current challenges, such as climate change, malnutrition, and economic hardship. For example, the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) even considers GE necessary to manage such topics [18].

1.2 Public Perception Stands in Stark Contrast to the Scientific Assessment

Despite the quasi-consensus among scientific academies, there is a large discrepancy between the natural scientists and the public’s opinions on GE, particularly in Germany.

Numerous studies on the societal acceptance of GE indicate people’s general rejection of such biotechnologies. For example, a recent survey shows that about half of the German population is concerned about GE food [19]. In another survey, respondents were asked to name problems and risks associated with food: GE foods were amongst the most frequently named causes of worry [20]. Additionally, even when asked for spontaneous associations with food risks, GE foods were among the most frequently mentioned items (i.e. 9%) [20]. To assess the public perception of GE, the Author of this chapter conducted a series of studies with their colleagues. Among the population, rejection remains high. A survey that is representative for the German population according to age, gender, income, education and region (N = 619), showed a rejection rate of 67% [21]. In another representative survey from 2020, 75% of participants (N = 653) stated to be more likely to reject GE [22]. In another study, this rate (76%, N = 636) is replicated. Others even found a rejection rate of 83% in Germany [23, 24]. In 2022, a study by the Federal Institute for Risk Evaluation found that 64% of consumers (N = 1001) said that they were “somewhat” to “very” concerned about GE foods [25].

1.3 Public and Consumer Support Is Necessary for Adequate Policies and Their Adoption

The stable and stark rejection of GE by the German public stands in contrast to the assessments of scientists involved in GE research. This is problematic because scientific consensus on the technology does not suffice for widespread adoption. It also requires the support of the public and consumers because public rejection can lead to adverse policies, and consumer rejection additionally hinders adoption. Without public support there are serious challenges in terms of policy making, agricultural development and science, as GE products cannot be beneficially developed and implemented.

Studies show that bans on GE prevent their potential positive effects and can even have negative consequences such as high opportunity costs, vitamin deficiency, hunger, economic losses, disproportionate bureaucratic efforts, etc. [9, 11, 26,27,28,29]. A prominent example is the earlier mentioned Golden Rice, which could be part of the solution for famine in poor countries since it counteracts common malnourishment by supporting the human body to produce vitamin A [12]. However, the stark public rejection has so far prevented the cultivation of Golden Rice on a large-scale. Since this technology cannot be used for food production in Europe, or rather in Germany, its advantages cannot be used either.

If the application of GE really brings all these positive effects for environment and society, urgent action is required. In order to contribute to solving this problem, the present chapter hypothesizes that a decisive driver for the stark divergence between scientific assessment and public perception was the way the German GE debate has been conducted in the public arena. Consequently, the present chapter suggests that this divergence can be mitigated by improving the public debate about biotechnologies, as well as its science communication.

1.4 Advocates in the German GE Debate Are Rarely Heard

In Germany, particularly the terms “Grüne Gentechnik” (green gene technology) and “GMO” – pejoratively understood by the public as “genetically manipulated organisms” – have become popular [30, 31]. Here, GE foods have been heavily criticized since their emergence. Probably no other foodstuff has ever been discussed as fiercely in Germany. The public debate has been ongoing since the late 1980s, and a settlement is not in sight. The arguments in the debate are manifold and often surprisingly contradictory. While opponents fear risks to human health [32], advocates report on health-promoting properties of such plants, e.g. through vitamin enrichment [12]. While proponents are convinced that increasing yields through GE increases the freedom and autonomy of farmers [33], opponents see poor smallholders in developing countries threatened by patents on GE products [34]. One might think that such contradictory views could be clarified by examining the facts and comparing the evidence. But the public discourse could not have been resolved so easily.

In the wake of this rejection, numerous demonstrations have been organized. The most prominent is the “Wir haben es satt!” [We are fed up.] event in Berlin, where approximately 30 thousand participants demonstrate against GE every year, among other issues.

A large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are involved in organizing this event, such as Bread for the World or the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union of Germany [35]. In general, NGOs position themselves homogeneously against GE in the public debate [36]. Organic associations such as “Demeter” also reject GE [37]. Organic organizations publicly represent this rejectionist stance prominently. For example, the initiative “Ich stehe auf Essen ohne Gentechnik” [I stand for food without GE] collected more than 100 thousand signatures in 2018 and handed them over to the Federal Environment Ministry [38].

This gives the impression that not only the majority of the public but also the majority of official organizations reject GE. This impression is created because proponents of GE are less present in the social debate. Although agricultural associations such as Deutscher Bauernverband position themselves in favor of GE [39], it is unknown if they launched any media campaigns or initiatives. The situation is similar for biotechnology companies such as Syngenta or Bayer: they are in favor of GE, but publicly accessible information is brief and rare [40]. Political supporters also largely consider the debate to be settled – and are quite obviously withdrawing their involvement [41]. Thus, on the advocating side, for the most part, only scientists and science representatives are involved in the discourse, such as the Association for Biology, Biosciences and Biomedicine [42].

1.5 Moral Convictions Can Hinder Policy Debates and Science Communication

The current situation of the public debate about GE, as well as the stark public resistance against this technology, particularly in Germany, suggest that science communication about GE has not been effective. This chapter aims to expand on why this is happening and how to solve this problem.

Particularly, based on recent research, this chapter proposes that science communication has not been effective due to strong moral convictions. This chapter further proposes that these strong moral convictions can be mitigated by providing credible, fact-based, scientific reasons for GE that address people’s dearest moral concerns.

Accordingly, this chapter takes the German debate about GE as an example to learn about the debate, improve science communication about GE more generally, and about newer genomic techniques such as “CRISPR”Footnote 1 [43] in particular.

For this purpose, this chapter proceeds as follows: First, the German GE debate is discussed. Based on this, as well as on research about judgement and opinion formation, it is argued that a closer look into moral convictions related to GE is sensible. Then, it is reported on research showing that GE attitudes in Germany are mainly based on such moral convictions. It is then suggested that a ban (or approval) of GE has become a moral goal in itself, rather than a tool. However, as this chapter argues, this strong moralization can be overcome if the focus can be turned towards common moral goals. It is reported on research that successfully tested this. Building on this, suggestions of how to improve science communication about GE are made.

2 GE Attitudes Are Likely Guided by Moral Intuitions

2.1 Complex Topics Such as GE Are Difficult to Assess as a Single Person with Time Constraints and Without Expert Knowledge

GE is a collective term for several methods which can be used for a variety of applications. From a theoretical perspective, these can result in applications with normatively desirable results as well as with normatively undesirable results. This chapter therefore takes the position that GE can yield many beneficial contributions to society and nature. At the same time, this also means that abuse of this technology is conceivable, and appropriate measures should be taken that help prevent such abuse.

For a single person not involved in the topic, and with their own time constraints, it is difficult to make an informed assessment of which applications should be used under which circumstances. Even experts involved in GE do not make any of these assessments alone. On the contrary, it usually takes different groups that can assess e.g. economic, social, or environmental aspects. Consumers, therefore, need an appropriate complexity reduction to formulate an informed opinion about GE.

Conversely, this means that potential benefits are difficult to be effectively communicated in the public debate: on the one hand, sweeping endorsements of GE lack credibility. Since the majority of the German population already rejects GE, such diametrically opposed blanket statements would only meet with even more resistance. On the other hand, differentiated, deliberative views may not entail the kind of complexity reduction that consumers, for example, need in their everyday, non-primary decision-making behavior. They are therefore difficult to communicate.

2.2 Public Debate Should Provide Guidance, But Mutual Accusations Make It Unclear Who to Trust

A public debate about new technologies can serve as a complexity reduction that informs the public or consumers and provides fact-based arguments about the risks and benefits in relation to the adoption of a technology. At the same time, public debates sometimes do not seem to move towards a consensus. This may leave the non-expert consumer with questions as to what to make of a technology.

In this, scientists – as the experts in their respective field or technology – have the task to make assessments about potential risks and benefits, and to make those publicly available. These assessments should provide guidance in trade-offs in public debates about new technologies. In fact, about GE, there are a number of such studies by scientific academies. The National Academies in the United States of America (USA) have evaluated the evidence available on GE and found no evidence that GE products are less safe for humans and animals than other products [8]. The World Health Organization states that no adverse health effects of GE are known to date [44]. Moreover, the German Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF reports on more than 300 studies that assess the safety of GE [45].

In their statements, the German national academies and the European Academies Science Advisory Council note the high potential of GE, as did NASEM, in their report [8, 16, 46]. In 2019, the German Research Foundation, the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, and the Leopoldina repeatedly pointed to the opportunities offered by GE [14].

However, in the German GE debate, scientists and their official statements appear to not have been successful in contributing their expert-mediator role to the debate. One potential explanation for this is the situation of the German GE debate mentioned above, in which the opposition is large, strong, present, and well-organized [35, 36], while the proponents are not very present but almost non-existent in the public debate [47]. This led to the curious situation in which scientists involved in GE research are almost the only group publicly providing arguments in favor of GE.

This situation in turn – so it is argued in this chapter – has made it difficult to perceive scientists in their role as mediators. In the case of GE, they may often not be perceived in a neutral position as informing experts, but rather, as is argued here, as a supporting party within the debate [47]. This may make it difficult for a consumer who wishes unbiased guidance on a complex topic.

This problem is fortified by the way the debate is conducted – in part. For example, the molecular biologist Ralph Bock asks in one of his essays whether politics wanted to “bully” the researchers in Germany until they were driven to despair [48]. The geneticist Wolfgang Nellen speaks of “hysteria” and “ignorance” in one of his articles [49]. Another example can be found in an article by geneticist Reinhard Szibor: “Green genetic engineering apparently serves as a projection surface for all the fears and frustrations of this world.” [50].

In 2016, this situation led 124 Nobel laureates to a rather extreme measure: they signed an official letter urging Greenpeace and the governments of the world to cease the campaigns against Golden Rice [51].

In this letter, the authors position themselves against opposition based not on scientific facts but on “emotion and dogma” [51]. They also call on governments to reject such campaigns. The criticism of Greenpeace in the letter is sharp: the NGO is accused of ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence, and of supporting field destruction. Implicitly, the Nobel laureates accuse Greenpeace of being responsible for the deaths of up to 500 thousand children annually. They also speak of a “crime against humanity” in this context. To date, 160 Nobel laureates signed this letter.

These examples show that scientists do not always maintain their neutrality as expert-mediator on the issue, but also argue with strong emotions and sharp criticisms against GE opponents. Such emotional debating does not strengthen the public’s trust in scientific expertise but may make science appear biased.

As a further intensifier of the problem, it can be observed that some GE opposing organizations doubt the integrity of scientists. For example, in response to the above-mentioned statement of the German Research Foundation and the National Academies of 2019, Testbioech e.V. spoke of an obvious “interest in the application of genetic engineering and its commercial exploitation.” [52]. Similarly, in response to the Nobel laureates’ letter, Greenpeace does not show the desired reaction, but insinuates bias: the NGO asked the lead author to be honest, and to disclose economic interests in the technology [53]. This reinforces an impression of partisanship.

At the same time, while science communication is necessary for progress and education, and is increasingly demanded and promoted, it is difficult for scientists to always argue in an unrestrictedly objective manner since they also want to defend their work, their community, and their identity. The current GE debate in Germany runs the risk to lead to further frustration and resignation among scientists.

On top of this, both sides are not involved in a dialogue, but address topics that are unrelated [36]. For example, while supporters of GE foods usually point out the technological advancements and the increased economic efficiency of GE, opponents of GE foods usually refer to potential environmental risks and health risks [54, 55].

Moreover, supporters and opponents also appear to use different concepts of naturalness in their arguments. On the opponents’ side, nature is seen as something sacred and pure that should remain untouched [56]. For advocates of naturalness, the GE of plants feels like interfering with nature and contaminating our flora [57]. Thus, the advocates of this view reject any human processing in nature [58]. On the other side, supporters affirm that GE foods do not pose any risks to nature and can even have beneficial properties for nature [45]. While GE supporters attribute some characteristics to nature that should be sustained, such as biodiversity, GE opponents see nature as something sacred that does not allow human processing [59].

With reference to the previous point, the debating parties may emphasize distinct values in their arguments. For example, while opponents point out aspects of fairness in relation to GE foods, supporters may rather focus on loyalty. More specifically, opponents state that corporations involved in GE food products disregard the rules for fair competition by lobbying for their own interests [60]. Supporters on the other hand promise the commitment of scientists to the use of GE for the benefit of society [45].

2.3 People Likely Resort to Moral Values and Emotions as Guidance

The current situation of the public GE debate, as well as the fact that GE assessment requires expert knowledge and years of training, suggests the following assumption: the public and consumers resort to intuitive guidance such as moral values and moral emotions. And indeed, research on factors that influence people’s opinion towards GE suggests that knowledge does not have a substantial influence on how people perceive this technology [61]. Rather, intuitions, such as emotions, play a much bigger role in GE acceptance [62].

The importance of emotions as intuitions for people’s opinion formation can be explained by adopting the distinction between two modes of thought: System 1 and System 2 [63]. System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. This refers to anything that we do intuitively or with a lot of practice, such as recognizing a friend or understanding the facial expression of anger. System 2 comprises effortful mental activities, such as complex computations. Operating System 2 entails conscious reasoning and requires agency, choice, and concentration [63]. For example, we use it when we make plans or check a logical argument for its validity. System 1 may be an evolutionary adaptation [64]: in order to survive, emotions needed to signal us fast and reliably when we are facing a threat, such as rotten food. Since emotions lead to much quicker judgments than rational thinking, they serve as a guide in matters of immediate danger.

There is a special type of emotions, moral emotions, that are neatly intertwined with moral values. In general, these are such emotions that motivate us to behave morally, and that respond to violations of moral values [65]. Following moral values means setting aside pure self-interest and orientating behavior and judgment according to the interest of the greater social welfare [66]. In human nature, moral values take priority over non-moral concerns [67]. Since we are social beings and could not survive without the protection and help of a group, moral values also fulfil an adaptive task: they make us liable for our actions and hence make it possible for us to live in groups and resist temptations which may be destructive for the survival of the entire group [68].

Since we relied on emotions and moral emotions for survival, it seems plausible that we also listen to them when we form our opinions on overly complex issues such as new technologies that may have an unprecedented impact on our lives.

And indeed, there is scientific evidence that opinion on GE foods is guided by moral values and moral emotions. Research on public opinions on agriculture finds that GE easily evokes emotions such as anger [69] and is usually connected with normative demands [70]. Moreover, it could be found that knowledge about GE is rather low in the public and that perceived fairness and trust in food producers enhances GE acceptance [54]. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, a perceived violation of nature deemed sacred seems to be one of the main reasons for the rejection of GE foods [59, 61]. This can be grounded in seeing nature as an intrinsic value that needs protection, or in religious reasons such as human interference in god’s will [56].

2.4 For Many, Trying GE Is Not Worth the Risk

Above, it was proposed that the complexity of the issue, as well as the situation of the public GE debate, lead people to resort to moral intuitions in their opinion formation. And indeed, for example, people’s individual predisposition towards risks plays a decisive role in opinion formation about GE: research has shown that risk-averse individuals are significantly more likely to oppose GE than risk-averse individuals [21].

Many people tend to want to avoid future uncertainties in principle [71]. The introduction of new technology represents such a future uncertainty, as one deviates from the known status quo. It seems to be the case that the majority of the German public prefers to maintain the status quo with regard to GE, rather than risk unanticipated consequences as a result of the adoption of the technology. In this chapter it is suggested that this is possible because in Germany, for the average consumer, it comes at no perceptible cost to maintain the status quo because there are enough affordable alternatives. Simply, there is the opportunity to be against GE. Under these circumstances, it does not seem “worth the risk” to try something that is perceived as unknown, compared to conventional breeding.

This importance of moral intuition implies that a debating party will be more convincing if they speak to those moral emotions and values that are most relevant to the public. Arguments that are less relevant with regard to moral emotions and values have much less persuasive power.

And at the moment, GE opponents are more successful in addressing people’s worries and risk aversion, by feeding into them. For example, a meta-analysis found that studies made by NGOs without scientific peer review appear to systematically reduce the estimated positive effects of GMOs [9]. Such measures reinforce the public perception that came to see these products as much more threatening than research would suggest.

Moreover, GE opponents address moral emotions such as disgust or anger, and thus further stimulate a rejection of GE foods in the public. For example, in some campaigns, GE foods have been associated with strong, disgust-provoking images, such as a woman eating ‘Frankenfood’, i.e. a genetically modified tomato which looks like a fish [72]. From eating this tomato, her skin is turning green. With that, the moral emotion of disgust is triggered, which relates to a violation of nature as an intrinsic value that no one should interfere with. So, moral opposition is the consequence.

Moreover, using language that is easy to grasp is another common strategy for many GE opponents [36]. Polemic terms such as “Gene-contamination” [31] or “Frankenfood” [73] produce memorable pictures and dramatize the topic. The consequence is predominantly negative associations with GE foods. Generally, some NGOs opposing GE make heavy use of emotionalized language. For example, in a book published by Earth Open Source, the authors describe GMO supporters as ‘unpleasant, angry, and hostile’ [74]. Another recent booklet states that GE ‘failed’ [31].

In contrast, arguments put forward by GE supporters seem to have less intuitive appeal [64].

Moreover, media reporting on GE likely contributes to this focus on risks associated with GE. Scientific experiments show that consumers prefer negative news and react more strongly to it [75, 76]. Negative news are therefore easier to sell, which means that they are likely overrepresented in the media landscape [77]. This is where the media’s incentive to report on potential risks of GE – rather than on potential benefits of the products – becomes apparent.

3 Moral Intuitions About GE Have Resulted in Strong Moral Convictions

As proposed above, the stark rejection of GE in the public and the fierce debate have led to a moralization of the topic. In our representative surveys, the majority of participants indicated that the question of GE was a moral one for them [21]. Furthermore, in recent survey (N = 619; N = 636), up to 90% of the opponents stated that they reject GE, no matter how great the benefits [21, 23]. This is in line with previous research by Scott et al. [59], who measured GE attitudes in the USA. Of their representative sample, 64%, were opposed. Of this opposition, 71% (i.e. 46% of the entire sample) stated opposition regardless of the consequences, claiming that GE (in this study: GMOs) “should be prohibited no matter how great the benefits and minor the risks from allowing it” were [59]. Other studies achieved similar results [24]. This means that participants state to maintain their attitude regardless of possible consequences. Many in Germany have become consequence-insensitive with regard to their GE position.

Taken literally, this means that the perceived benefit from a ban of GE, or approval, respectively, is infinite [59, 78]. Thus, there is no cost-benefit trade-off regarding the use of GE. Rather, their GE position has been elevated to a sacred value worthy of protection [79].

Interestingly, research has shown that attitudes toward GE are consequence-insensitive for a significant proportion of supporters as well [22, 23]. Here, it is important to emphasize that, contrary to popular belief, GE is not only a moral issue for opponents. Rather, for a significant proportion of supporters, their GE position has become a moral issue as well.

Such strong moral conviction makes it hard to engage in a constructive discourse about the risks and benefits of the technology and its potential applications. Here likely lies one reason for why science communication about GE is not effective at the moment. Rozin refers to such phenomena as “moral piggybacking” [80]. Here, objects or facts that are in themselves value-free are morally charged, as can be observed, for example, among vegetarians on the topic of meat consumption [80, 81]. For many, GE opposition, but also GE support, has become a moral goal in itself.

3.1 In the Public Eye, GE Has Become a Moral Goal, Rather Than a Means to Moral Goals

Among consumers and the public, the moralization of GE has grown so strong that a ban or approval of it now has an intrinsic moral value, good or evil. This means that the public does not perceive the properties of the technology, but the technology itself as the central interest in the discourse. Rather than looking at potential consequences of the technology, GE has become the moral goal of the debate. Here, moral goals are confused with their potential means [82]. GE has become the moral goal in itself [47].

This normativity of GE in the population is readily taken up by the parties to the discourse and forms the central problem of the conflict: in a generalized normative ban or command on GE are mutually exclusive, there is no room for agreement.

It can be observed that positions in the public debate are generally quite generalized. These general evaluations create two fronts of “right/good” and “wrong/evil”, in which the goals of each side appear incompatible: it appears that one can either be in favor or against GE. The fact that many arguments in the debate are not weighed up in a differentiated way creates the impression that one can only decide for or against one side. This creates a moral conflict of objectives for the public in which the potential positions appear mutually exclusive: It appears as if one can position oneself either for a ban on GE, or an approval of GE.

In the case of mutually exclusive demands, however, it is not possible to resolve the discourse to the benefit of both sides. Since it is then not in the interest of either side to deviate from their positions, the discourse is stuck [47].

In this situation, the debating parties perceive the debate as a tradeoff thinking with little room for a solution. The debate resembles a social dilemma: the strategies of the participants lead to a mutually worse position because this stalemated debate benefits no one and is tiresome for all participants and observers [82]. This stuck discourse puts pressure on policymakers and ultimately leads to legislation that reflects the goal-means confusion. As an institutional framework for research and development, this legislation blocks innovation. The results are opportunity costs because possible solutions cannot be found and urgent problems remain unsolved [29, 83].

3.2 Moral Convictions Are Especially Hard to Mitigate

These strong moral convictions provide another explanation for why science communication and arguments of scientists involved in the debate do not seem to reach the public: research in moral psychology has shown that moral judgments are much more stable and long-term than other judgments [84]. This is because, for humans, moral concerns take priority over non-moral concerns [67]. Such strong moral beliefs have real effects on daily actions: For example, people with different moral beliefs are more likely to be avoided, and they are also less likely to be believed [85, 86]. Over time, some moral beliefs can become so strongly attached to a person’s core moral constitution that they become linked to that person’s identity [80, 81, 85].

And indeed, in recent research, a large proportion of subjects view their position towards GE as central to their personal moral beliefs [87].

4 Can Strong Moral Convictions Be Mitigated?

If science communication has difficulties reaching the majority of the German public because of strong moral convictions about GE, a solution that mitigates these strong moral convictions and allows GE to be discussed as a possible means, rather than a moral goal is necessary.

Similar suggestions can also be found in “Ethical Tensions from New Technology” [88]. It is not the technology that should be discussed, but its applications. And this with regard to questions such as: What problems do we face? For which of these problems can GE be an appropriate tool? Under what conditions? What are the risks? Are there sensible alternatives? Similarly, scientific academies in Germany are already calling for it [14].

However, if the rejection of GE is moral, is there a way to overcome this moral rejection of this technology?

Since the beginning of modernity, many technological innovations have enriched society. For example, medical diagnostics was able to make great progress through X-ray or MRI technologies. Everyday life has also been made easier by household appliances such as the washing machine or the dishwasher. Some technologies are quickly adapted because of their obvious high utility (e.g., X-ray machine, household appliances). New technologies are not always greeted with openness; in some cases, their development is viewed skeptically. For example, Kenneth Olsen saw no reason why anyone would need a computer at home [89]. Sir Preece, the chief engineer at the British Post Office, thought the telephone was unnecessary because there were enough letter carriers [90]. Thus, some technologies experience initial skepticism, but then prevail because of their advantages.

In the eighties and nineties, there were very heated debates in Germany about the medical application of GE [91]. The focus here was particularly on human insulin, which has been used since the 1980s to treat diabetes. Concerning this, negative reports circulated in the media. A newspaper called “TAZ” poke of a “gateway drug” [92] and reported on side effects and dubious competitive practices surrounding the drug [93]. In 1991, a report of the public television broadcasting service “ARD” spoke of frequent and serious risks to patients from human insulin [94]. These reports were contradicted by physicians and scientists. For example, in the German Medical Journal, the German Medical Association confirmed the successful and problem-free treatment of patients since 1983 [94].

By now, this great initial skepticism has dissolved into acceptance. In the meantime, Germany is one of the world’s leading producers of genetically engineered pharmaceuticals, which are no longer an issue in the public debate [91].

Thus, it is proposed here that consumers and the public need to be provided with tangible, credible reasons to try GE foods or adopt GE technology in spite of their worries related to the technology. Specifically, the advantages of GE have to become salient and tangible enough for people to outweigh perceived potential risks.

4.1 Moral Goals Can Mitigate Strong Moral Convictions

Recently, it was tested whether there are such consequences of GE that would make the public and consumers abandon their moral convictions about the technology [87]. Specifically, in an online experiment in Germany in 2020 (based on own research), representative of the population (N = 1900) according to age, gender, and level of education, it was tested whether respondents could identify consequences that are so important to them, that they would abandon their moral convictions towards GE. This experiment only included people who indicated a strong moral conviction towards GE. This led to the inclusion of around 1500 GE opponents who stated that they would reject GE regardless of the consequences. Additionally, this also led to inclusion of around 400 GE supporters who stated they approve of GE regardless of the consequences.

These “consequence-insensitive” participants were randomly assigned to four probes that tested their moral conviction. Here, two of those probes are presented.

In the open-ended reflection task, consequence-insensitive participants were asked whether they could think of any circumstances that would make them abandon their position towards GE. Respondents could then provide their answers in free-text boxes. Table 30.1 shows examples of circumstances stated, the moral goals these address, as well as their frequencies.

Table 30.1 Open-ended reflection (share of consequence-insensitive respondents mentioning a topic)
Full size table

In this probe, a little less than 50% did not state any consequence that would make them abandon their consequence-insensitive position towards GE – but more than 50% did!

In another, the counterexamples probe, consequence-insensitive participants were provided with a list of moral goals and asked them to select all of those that would make them abandon their consequence-insensitive position towards GE. Table 30.2 shows how frequently each moral goal has been selected.

Table 30.2 Counterexamples (percentage of consequence-insensitive respondents selecting each counterexample)
Full size table

In this probe, almost every opponent (361/369; 97.8%) and supporter (100/101; 99%) selected at least one option.

The results of these probes show that nearly everyone who previously proclaimed consequence insensitivity indicated that there are circumstances for which they would abandon their position.

After these probes, participants were asked to state their positions towards GE again. Interestingly, a significant proportion of those who initially stated to maintain their position regardless of the consequences abandoned this strong moral conviction after the probes. Moreover, the attitudes towards GE among those previously morally convicted also became less extreme after the probes [87].

Therefore, while moral convictions about GE are both common and hard to change, still the majority of consequence-insensitive participants state that there are at least some circumstances that would make them abandon their position. This was particularly true when common moral goals were made salient to them. Examples of such moral goals that are dearest to participants are life, health, and environmental protection.

This means that consensus in the GE debate is possible and that it is possible for science communication to reach even the most morally convicted – if people’s actual moral goals would become the focus of the debate, and GE would then be discussed as a potential means of these goals, rather than the goal itself.

5 Improved Science Communication About GE in Public Debate

5.1 Provide Credible and Tangible Advantages That Address Common Moral Goals

The abovementioned study indicates that in many cases, both supporters and opponents of GE actually share moral goals, such as life, health and environmental protection. This is also one result of another content analysis [95]. Moreover, our studies indicate that strong moral convictions about GE can be mitigated if people are provided with credible, tangible moral reasons to try GE products in spite of their worries.

If the common moral goals are identified, it is possible to examine whether GE is a suitable means for reaching these goals. Here, appropriate measurement tools can be used to clarify this perceived conflict. These are, for example, scientific studies, meta-analyses, risk analyses, or long-term observations of the plants under discussion.

Then, science communication about GE is likely effective if science communicators provide credible evidence that GE can be a tool to reach these moral goals.

For example, one of the common moral goals that Waldhof identified is effective development aid [95]. However, at the moment, some public statements against GE state that the technology causes disadvantages for small farmers [31]. Evidently, many conclude from such statements that if one wants to pursue effective development aid, GE would be a hindrance. Consequently, the moral goal development aid would be a reason to ban GE.

Therefore, at the moment, the argumentation can be presented as follows [47]:

  1. 1.

    Normative assumption: It is a moral goal to provide effective development aid.

  2. 2.

    Positive assumption: GE causes economic disadvantages for small farmers.

  3. 3.

    Normative conclusion: Therefore, GE should be banned.

However, a meta-study on the effects of GE found that the technology especially benefits farmers in developing countries [9].

Similarly, Ahmed et al. concluded in their study in Bangladesh that farmers save their costs, obtain more yield, and likewise protect their health through reduced pesticide use by using a GE eggplant [26]. This scientific evidence requires that the positive assumption (2) needs to be changed: GE benefits small farmers in developing countries, particularly. As a consequence, the conclusion (3) also changes: GE should be used for development aid. Now, the argumentation is as follows:

  1. 1.

    Normative assumption: It is a moral goal to provide effective development aid.

  2. 2.

    Positive assumption: GE benefits small farmers in developing countries, particularly.

  3. 3.

    Normative conclusion: GE should be used for development aid.

The same procedure can also be applied to the moral goal of nature conservation. GE crops are often associated with increased pesticide use [96]. Pesticides can be a burden on soils and can also put insects at excessive risk. For this reason, Brookes and Barfoot examined pesticide use associated with GE from 1996 to 2015 [97]. They found that pesticide use decreased by 8.1% due to the use of green genetic engineering. Overall, their study concludes that biotechnology has a positive impact on the environment. GE thus contributes to nature conservation.

5.2 Include Credible and Salient Science Communicators That Truly Care About the Moral Goals

It is argued above that scientists involved in GE research are currently not perceived as expert mediators that can solve the discourse block, but as – a somewhat biased – party within the debate. It was argued that this may be in part because of the way the debate is conducted, and because scientists and scientific organizations are the only ones bringing forward supporting arguments for GE. Consequently, scientists alone cannot resolve the strong moral conviction and the resulting discourse block. They need support. In the same vein, in a newsletter of the Leopoldina, Hans-Georg Dederer, demands more support from politicians [41].

It is argued here that, alongside science-based and moral arguments, the debate about GE needs additional actors that truly care about the moral goals, and not about the technology or its ban. By now, more and more such actors are joining the debate. One example is Professor Urs Niggli, who was the director of the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture for 30 years since 1990 and is also known as the “organic pope” [98, 99]. He is considered one of the world’s leading scientists in organic agriculture and is known for his commitment to sustainable food and farming systems [99, 100]. According to him, agriculture is at a turning point where a stronger orientation towards technology is necessary [101, 102]. For him, this also includes the use of biotechnological processes in agriculture. Niggli believes that the use of CRISPR means that goals such as food security and biodiversity no longer have to be mutually exclusive, but can be achieved together [99].

The NGO “Progressive Agrarwende” takes a similar view. This young group of scientists, students and politicians, founded in 2019, is pursuing the goal of implementing an agricultural turnaround toward socially and ecologically sustainable agriculture according to the latest scientific and technological standards [103]. They observe that many environmentally conscious people act against their own goals by a blanket rejection of modern agricultural techniques. For this reason, they have founded a dialogue platform to address applications, regulations and patenting of agricultural technologies in an open-ended and transparent manner. To this end, Progressive Agrarwende regularly writes articles, organizes events or reports on scientific findings.

More and more actors that call for a science-based evaluation of products developed from GE technology are joining the debate or gaining more attention. These are for example maiLab (youtube.com/@maiLab), Grain Club (grain-club.de/) or transGEN (transgen.de/). Coalitions with such professional science communicators help scientific evidence gain salience in the debate. They will also help scientists to communicate their findings in an understandable and enjoyable way that is easy to follow.

Moreover, the call for a science-based assessment of GE is receiving more media attention. For example, the TV show MaiThink X dedicated an entire episode to arguing for a science-based evaluation of GE [104]. Similarly, in December 2022, the TV show Heute Show [Today Show] argued that a general fear of GE is not science-based and should be reconsidered [105].

Moreover, recent research has shown that in many arguments, the debate deviates from discussing the risks and benefits of the technology to discussing the behavior of the actors involved [95]. For example, while GE opposition criticizes unfair behavior of corporations, GE supporters claim loyal commitment of scientists to use GE research for the common welfare. However, ensuring the trustworthiness of scientists seems unlikely to solve reservations towards corporations or the market. Understandably, scientists involved in GE research cannot speak to the governance of involved actors. Here, it would help if social scientists joined the debate to discuss market mechanisms and the behavior of companies and other actors.

Furthermore, self-binding mechanisms offer a further opportunity to increase the quality of discourse. As described above, organizations involved in trade-offs also have a long-term interest in objectifying the discourse because of the loss of reputation that can otherwise be expected. If NGOs join forces and commit themselves to collectively agreed standards and fair discourse processes, they can signal the high quality of their contributions [106]. Corresponding initiatives already exist, such as Accountable Now! [83, 107, 108]. The NGOs involved regularly submit reports that are reviewed and commented on by a panel.

Generally, it seems that the German GE debate is changing, moving away from a generalized debate towards a more differentiated debate about what GE can and cannot do. In this, science-based arguments appear to be gaining increasing salience in the debate.

6 Summary

A large share of natural scientists consider the application of GE to be necessary for a sustainable transformation of agriculture. However, there is a stark divergence between scientific assessment and public perception of this technology, particularly in Germany. So far, science communication has not been able to resolve this divergence. Research on technology acceptance shows that people have a general tendency to follow their emotions and intuitions when forming their opinions on technologies [61]. The present chapter suggests that strong moral convictions hinder effective science communication and provides scientific evidence for this claim. This is because moral convictions are more stable than other judgements. This led to a situation, in which the approval or rejection of GE are perceived as a moral goal in itself. The analysis thus suggests that a way has to be found in which GE is perceived as a potential tool for moral goals, rather than a goal in itself. For this purpose, the chapter also reports on research which suggests that strong moral convictions can be mitigated through shared moral goals. Building on this insight, recommendations for improved science communication about GE are formulated.

Generally, GE should be perceived as a potential tool to reach moral goals such as food security or sustainability. With every tool, there are advantages and disadvantages. This is what makes thorough risk assessments, and a debate that weighs potential risks and benefits, indispensable. One result of such debates would be procedures that reduce potential risks of new technologies such as GE. At the same time, potential risks should be addressed symmetrically:

The use of [new genomic techniques] NGTs raises ethical concerns but so does missing opportunities as a result of not using them. […] Any further policy action should be aimed at reaping benefits from innovation while addressing concerns. A purely safety-based risk assessment may not be enough to promote sustainability and contribute to the objectives of the European Green Deal […] [109].