In the development of risky technologies, such as genetic modification organisms, the issue is that the value of safety cannot be ethically ignored and the users/consumers of risky technological artifacts should not be exposed to a risk beyond a certain threshold. On the other hand, technology policymakers generally view ethical considerations as abstract claims and as obstacles to economic and technological growth. All together considering ethical considerations and the perspectives of all stakeholders in policymaking on risky technologies, without leading to the halt of these projects, requires a multilateral, multi-layered and well-balanced approach. To this end, this article proposes a policy approach corresponding to John Rawls' philosophical theory, and finally, within this framework, the process of developing genetic modification organisms in Iran and its challenges are examined.
Keywords: Technology Ethics, Wide Reflective Equilibrium, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy-Oriented Learning, GMOs.

Introduction
The development of Risky Technologies is almost invariably accompanied by tensions between ethical acceptability, economic interests, policy objectives, and social acceptance. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) represent a paradigmatic case of such technologies. On the one hand, they are widely promoted for their potential to enhance food security, increase agricultural productivity, and reduce economic dependency. On the other hand, they raise persistent concerns regarding human health, environmental risks, and broader social and cultural implications. The so-called deficit model assumes that public resistance to emerging technologies primarily stems from ignorance or lack of scientific knowledge. However many surveys in science and technology studies show that public attitudes toward technologies such as GMOs are shaped not merely by factual beliefs but by a complex constellation of values, trust in institutions, perceptions of justice, cultural meanings, and moral emotions. Consequently, opposition to GMOs should not automatically be interpreted as irrational or anti-scientific. Rather, it often reflects deeper normative concerns that, if dismissed, can exacerbate social conflict and undermine the legitimacy of policy decisions. Policymaking in this domain faces a fundamental dilemma: ethical principles such as safety and precaution cannot be ignored, yet suspending or prohibiting technological development altogether may entail significant scientific, economic, and societal costs. This dilemma calls for a policy approach capable of systematically integrating ethical considerations without leading to technological stagnation.

Materials & Methods
This article seeks to answer the following question: How can ethical considerations be meaningfully incorporated into technology policy in a way that both respects normative concerns and enables responsible technological development. To this end, the article proposes an analytical–normative framework that combines John Rawls’s concept of Wide Reflective Equilibrium (WRE) with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and its notion of policy-oriented learning. We address the problem of ethically informed policymaking for risky and controversial technologies by focusing on the case of genetically modified crops in Iran. The unit of analysis in this case is organizations, individuals, and events affecting the process of developing genetic modification technology, which are analyzed and examined within the framework of the advocacy coalition. To collect data, evidence was obtained from common sources in advocacy coalition framework research, namely public documents, which include government approvals, published reports of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the National Management and Planning Organization and related institutions, archives of official newspapers, and news sites. The period of these documents is from 2001 to 2022, and data analysis is carried out based on time sequence.

Discussion & Result
Rawls’s notion of wide reflective equilibrium (WRE) is a promising philosophical resource for addressing ethical disagreement in technology good governance. According to Rawls, normative justification does not rely on the application of fixed moral principles but emerges from an iterative process of mutual adjustment between considered moral judgments, general principles, and relevant background theories. This process allows for rational deliberation among agents who hold divergent moral commitments, making it particularly suitable for pluralistic societies. In the context of emerging technologies, wide reflective equilibrium offers a way to negotiate ethical disagreements without presupposing consensus on foundational values. This philosophical idea can be operationalized at the level of public policy. To this end, Rawls’s framework is combined with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which conceptualizes policymaking as a dynamic process involving competing coalitions of actors who share belief systems and seek to influence policy outcomes over time. Within the ACF, policy change occurs primarily through policy-oriented learning, defined as enduring changes in beliefs or preferences resulting from experience, new information, or interaction with rival coalitions.

The conditions required for policy-oriented learning closely mirror the conditions necessary for achieving wide reflective equilibrium in practice. Drawing on Sabatier’s work, two key conditions are emphasized. First, there must be a moderate level of informed conflict between advocacy coalitions. Ethical and policy debates must be substantive enough to engage core normative concerns, yet not so polarized that they devolve into identity-based or ideological confrontation. Second, there must exist a relatively autonomous forum—characterized by professional norms and procedural fairness—where experts and stakeholders from different coalitions can engage in sustained, evidence-based dialogue. Such forums function as institutional analogues of reflective equilibrium, enabling actors to revise their beliefs through deliberation rather than coercion or political dominance.

Considering two decades of policymaking on genetically modified crops in Iran (2000–2020) using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, it identifies competing coalitions advocating for and against GMO development. The analysis shows that while both coalitions possess scientific and technical expertise, ethical disagreements have often been framed in ways that hinder policy learning. In particular, characterizations of GMOs as a “foreign conspiracy” or as “interference with divine creation” function as deep core beliefs that resist empirical scrutiny and compromise the possibility of rational deliberation. When ethical concerns are articulated in absolutist or metaphysical terms, they obstruct the iterative adjustment of beliefs that reflective equilibrium requires. Furthermore, this case study reveals institutional deficiencies that undermine the second condition for policy-oriented learning. Although bodies such as the National Biosafety Council were established in Iran to manage ethical and safety concerns, they have struggled to operate as genuinely neutral and deliberative forums. Political pressures, shifting governmental priorities, and limited stakeholder inclusion have prevented these institutions from facilitating sustained ethical dialogue. As a result, GMO policymaking in Iran has been characterized by policy instability, regulatory delays, and cyclical reversals coinciding with changes in political leadership.

Conclusion
To overcome policy deadlock in the governance of risky and controversial technologies it requires more than improved risk assessment or public communication strategies. What is needed are institutional arrangements that enable wide reflective equilibrium at the policy level. Such arrangements must support informed ethical disagreement, foster trust among stakeholders, and provide stable forums for deliberation insulated from short-term political pressures. By integrating Rawlsian moral reasoning with the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we offer a novel approach to ethically grounded technology policy—one that acknowledges value pluralism while remaining oriented toward practical decision-making and learning over time.