“It’s all about factory farming:” German public imaginaries of gene editing technologies in animal agriculture

Abstract Since its development, scientists have proclaimed that the novel gene editing technology CRISPR-Cas will allow them to modify organisms with unprecedented speed and accuracy. In agriculture, CRISPR-Cas is said to significantly extend the possibilities to genetically modify common livestock animals. Genetic targets in livestock include edits to optimize yield, minimize environmental impacts, and improve animal health, among other targets that could be environmentally, medically, and economically beneficial. In Germany, a transdisciplinary research consortium consisting of geneticists, local animal breeding organizations, social scientists and legal scholars co-developed a “vanguard vision” (Hilgartner in Science and democracy: Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond, Routledge, London, 2015) for CRISPR-Cas edits in livestock that would improve animal health and benefit local small- to medium-scale farmers. Part of our social science work in this consortium was to discuss these specific application scenarios with members of the public in focus group settings. In this article, we trace how the public engaged with the consortium’s vision of gene editing in smaller-scale animal agriculture. We found that instead of engaging with the vision proposed, a majority of participants held an entrenched “sociotechnical imaginary” (Jasanoff and Kim in Minerva 47:119–146, 2009) that was rooted in “storylines” (Hajer in The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process, Clarendon, Oxford, 1995) focused on factory farming, drawing upon arguments from German public and media discourses, NGO campaigning, and political decision-making about genetically modified organisms in the early 2000s. Our analysis points to the difficulties of establishing alternative visions of technology use once a specific sociotechnical imaginary has been established in a distinct national context, and raises questions regarding the possibilities of responsible research and innovation for highly contested technologies.