Technology Ethics and Policy Learning in the Development of GMOs in Iran

Ghadamgahi, Narges; Mokhtari, Mahmoud

doi:10.30465/ps.2025.52815.1797

Technology Ethics and Policy Learning in the Development of GMOs in Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Narges Ghadamgahi ¹

Mahmoud Mokhtari ²

¹ M.A. in Science and Technology Policy Making, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,Iran

² Assistant Professor in Philosophy of Science and Technology, Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Shahid Beheshti UniversityT Tehran,Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/ps.2025.52815.1797

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Technology Ethics

Wide Reflective Equilibrium

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Policy-Oriented Learning

GMOs

Subjects

Philosophy of technology

Cotton, M. (2014). Ethics and technology assessment: A participatory approach: Springer.

Cowell, R., Bristow, G., & Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(4), 539-557.

Daniels, N. (1996). Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice: Cambridge University Press.

Earle, T. C., & Siegrist, M. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(5), 1395-1414.

Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and Practise. In J. Van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information Technology and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flynn, R. (2007). Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies (pp. 1-23): Springer.

Ghiasvand Ghiasi, F. , Mirak Zadeh, A. A. and Shiri, N. (2015). Factors Affecting Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modiﬁed (GM) Crops (Case study: Qazvin County). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 46(3), 427-438.

Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy policy, 35(5), 2727-2736.

Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., & Wynne, B. (2000). Wising up. The public and new technologies.

Hannis, M., & Rawles, K. (2013). Compensation or bribery? Ethical issues in relation to radwaste host communities Radioactivity in the Environment (Vol. 19, pp. 347-374): Elsevier.

Hansson, S. O. (2006). Informed consent out of context. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 149-154.

Huijts, N. M., Molin, E. J., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 16(1), 525-531.

Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy studies journal, 39(3), 435-459.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of public policy, 14(2), 175-203.

Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses, 7(8), 4254-4281.

Molla Yousefi, M. (2016). John Rawls and the Method of Reflective Equilibrium in Ethics. Philosophia and Theologia: Dialogues in Criticism and Reflection, 21(81), 4-32.

Noorizadeh, M. , Kalantari, I. and Habiba, S. (2017). jstp. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(4), 77-99.

OmidiNia, E. (2010). Impacts of Contradictory Assumptions in Science and Technology Policy: the Case of Biosafety Legislation in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 3(2), 45-63.

Oosterlaken, I. (2015). Applying value sensitive design (VSD) to wind turbines and wind parks: An exploration. Science and engineering ethics, 21(2), 359-379.

Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy studies journal, 45(S1), S13-S46.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Reiss, M. J., & Straughan, R. (2001). Improving nature?: the science and ethics of genetic engineering: Cambridge University Press.

Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety science, 44(8), 689-700.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21(2), 129-168.

Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & van Kruining, M. (2011). When are transport pricing policies fair and acceptable? Social Justice Research, 24(1), 66-84.

Schulte, I., Hart, D., & Van der Vorst, R. (2004). Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29(7), 677-685.

Taebi, B. (2017). Bridging the gap between social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Risk analysis, 37(10), 1817-1827.

van de Poel, I. (2012). Can we design for well-being? In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 295-306). New York: Routledge.

van de Poel, I., & Kroes, P. (2014). Can technology embody values. In P. Kroes & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts (pp. 103-124). Dordrecht: Springer.

van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (2015). Design for Values: An Introduction. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design (pp. 1-7). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer.

Weible, C. M., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2016). The advocacy coalition framework: An approach for the comparative analysis of contentious policy issues Contemporary approaches to public policy: Theories, controversies and perspectives (pp. 15-34): Springer.

Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195-212.

Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121-140.

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.