@article{zarate_cimadori_jones_roca_barnhill-dilling_2023, title={Assessing agricultural gene editing regulation in Latin America: an analysis of how policy windows and policy entrepreneurs shape agricultural gene editing regulatory regimes}, volume={11}, ISSN={["2296-4185"]}, DOI={10.3389/fbioe.2023.1209308}, abstractNote={This article explores the new developments and challenges of agricultural Gene Editing (GED) regulation in primarily nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. As Gene Editing technology develops, Latin America and the Caribbean regulatory regimes struggle to keep pace. Developers and regulators face challenges such as consumer perceptions, intellectual property, R&D funding (private and public), training, environmental and social impact, and access to domestic and international markets. Some Latin America and the Caribbean countries (e.g., Argentina) interpret existing legislation to promulgate regulations for biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), while others (e.g., Brazil and Honduras) have specific legislation for Genetically Modified Organisms. In both those cases, often a case-by-case approach is chosen to determine whether a Gene Editing organism is subject to Genetically Modified Organisms regulations or not. Other countries such as Peru have opted to ban the technology due to its perceived resemblance to transgenic Genetically Modified Organisms. After presenting the regulatory landscape for agricultural Gene Editing in Latin America and the Caribbean, this article addresses some of the differences and similarities across the region. Some countries have had more foresight and have dedicated resources to increase capacity and develop regulations (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico before 2018) while others struggle with bureaucratic limitations and partisanship of policymaking (e.g., Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico after 2018). We propose that the differences and similarities between these regulatory regimes have emerged in part as a result of policy entrepreneurs (influential individuals actively involved in policy making) taking advantage of policy windows (opportunities for shaping policy and regulation). The third and remaining sections of this study discuss our main findings. Based on 41 semi structured interviews with regulators, scientists, product developers, NGOs and activists, we arrived at three main findings. First, there seems to be a consensus among most regulators interviewed that having harmonized regimes is a positive step to facilitate product development and deployment, leading to commercialization. Second, reducing bureaucracy (e.g., paper work) and increasing flexibility in regulation go hand in hand to expedite the acquisition of key lab materials required by developers in countries with less robust regimes such as Peru and Bolivia. Finally, developing public and private partnerships, fostering transparency, and increasing the involvement of marginalized groups may increase the legitimacy of Gene Editing regulation.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN BIOENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY}, author={Zarate, Sebastian and Cimadori, Ilaria and Jones, Michael S. S. and Roca, Maria Mercedes and Barnhill-Dilling, S. Kathleen}, year={2023}, month={Jun} }
 @article{grieger_zarate_barnhill-dilling_hunt_jones_kuzma_2022, title={Fostering Responsible Innovation through Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of North Carolina Sweetpotato Stakeholders}, volume={14}, ISSN={2071-1050}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042274}, DOI={10.3390/su14042274}, abstractNote={Stakeholder and community engagement are critical for the successful development of new technologies that aim to be integrated into sustainable agriculture systems. This study reports on an approach used to engage stakeholders within the sweetpotato community in North Carolina to understand their preferences, needs, and concerns as they relate to a new sensing and diagnostic platform. This work also demonstrates an example of real-time technology assessment that also fosters responsible innovation through inclusivity and responsiveness. Through the conduction of 29 interviews with sweetpotato stakeholders in North Carolina, we found that participants found the most value in detecting external sweetpotato characteristics, as well as the ability to use or connect to a smartphone that can be used in field. They also found value in including environmental parameters and having a Spanish language module. Most participants indicated that they were comfortable with sharing data as long as it benefited the greater North Carolina sweetpotato industry, and were concerned with sharing these data with “outside” competitors. We also observed differences and variations between stakeholder groups. Overall, this work demonstrates a relatively simple, low-cost approach to eliciting stakeholder needs within a local agricultural context to improve sustainability, an approach that could be leveraged and transferred to other local agrifood systems.}, number={4}, journal={Sustainability}, publisher={MDPI AG}, author={Grieger, Khara and Zarate, Sebastian and Barnhill-Dilling, Sarah Kathleen and Hunt, Shelly and Jones, Daniela and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Feb}, pages={2274} }
 @article{kokotovich_barnhill-dilling_elsensohn_li_delborne_burrack_2022, title={Stakeholder engagement to inform the risk assessment and governance of gene drive technology to manage spotted-wing drosophila}, volume={307}, ISSN={["1095-8630"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114480}, DOI={10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114480}, abstractNote={Emerging biotechnologies, such as gene drive technology, are increasingly being proposed to manage a variety of pests and invasive species. As one method of genetic biocontrol, gene drive technology is currently being developed to manage the invasive agricultural pest spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, SWD). While there have been calls for stakeholder engagement on gene drive technology, there has been a lack of empirical work, especially concerning stakeholder engagement to inform risk assessment. To help address this gap and inform future risk assessments and governance decisions for SWD gene drive technology, we conducted a survey of 184 SWD stakeholders to explore how they define and prioritize potential benefits and potential adverse effects from proposed SWD gene drive technology. We found that stakeholders considered the most important potential benefits of SWD gene drive technology to be: 1) Decrease in the quantity or toxicity of pesticides used, and 2) Decrease in SWD populations. Stakeholders were most concerned about the potential adverse effects of: 1) Decrease in beneficial insects, 2) Increase in non-SWD secondary pest infestations, and 3) Decrease in grower profits. Notably, we found that even stakeholders who expressed support for the use of SWD gene drive technology expressed concerns about potential adverse effects from the technology, emphasizing the need to move past simplistic, dichotomous views of what it means to support or oppose a technology. These findings suggest that instead of focusing on the binary question of whether stakeholders support or oppose SWD gene drive technology, it is more important to identify and assess the factors that are consequential to stakeholder decision making - including, for example, exploring whether and under what conditions key potential adverse effects and potential benefits would result from the use of SWD gene drive technology.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Barnhill-Dilling, S. Kathleen and Elsensohn, Johanna E. and Li, Richard and Delborne, Jason A. and Burrack, Hannah}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{barnhill-dilling_delborne_2021, title={Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating "Intended Consequences" for conservation with environmental biotechnology}, volume={3}, ISSN={["2578-4854"]}, DOI={10.1111/csp2.406}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE}, author={Barnhill-Dilling, S. Kathleen and Delborne, Jason A.}, year={2021}, month={Apr} }
 @article{barnhill-dilling_serr_blondel_godwin_2019, title={Sustainability as a Framework for Considering Gene Drive Mice for Invasive Rodent Eradication}, volume={11}, ISSN={2071-1050}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11051334}, DOI={10.3390/su11051334}, abstractNote={Gene drives represent a dynamic and controversial set of technologies with applications that range from mosquito control to the conservation of biological diversity on islands. Currently, gene drives are being developed in mice that may one day serve as an important tool for reducing invasive rodent pests, a key threat to island biodiversity and economies. Gene drives in mice are still in development in laboratories, and wild release of modified mice is likely a distant reality. However, technological changes outpace the existing capacity of regulatory frameworks, and thus require integrated governance frameworks. We suggest sustainability—which gives equal consideration to the environment, economy, and society—as one framework for addressing complexity and uncertainty in the governance of emerging gene drive technologies for invasive species management. We explore the impacts of rodent gene drives on island environments, including potential conservation and restoration of island biodiversity. We outline considerations for rodent gene drives on island economies, including impacts on agricultural and tourism losses, and reductions in biosecurity costs. Finally, we address the social dimension as an essential space for deliberation that will be integral to evaluating the potential deployment of gene drive rodents on islands.}, number={5}, journal={Sustainability}, publisher={MDPI AG}, author={Barnhill-Dilling, S. and Serr, Megan and Blondel, Dimitri and Godwin, John}, year={2019}, month={Mar}, pages={1334} }