This mixed-method qualitative study examines debates surrounding the socio-ethical implications of human germline genome-editing (hGGE) technologies, focusing on how hybrid elite stakeholders’ discursive and argumentative strategies have shaped the UK hGGE debate within the unique regulatory landscape of the UK. I utilise conceptual approaches from science and technology studies (STS) and ethics to explore how hGGE debates are architected through tools, such as the inclusion and exclusion of actors, rhetorical devices, and argumentative patterns.
The thesis identifies multiple agorae in the UK where preparatory debates on hGGE occur, building upon approaches from NEST-ethics to produce a taxonomy of argumentative patterns employed by hybrid elite stakeholders in ethical discussions of hGGE. I argue that argumentative patterns identified — such as the creation of boundaries or the use of metaphors — are reified and stabilised by the agora. I conclude that these argumentative patterns contribute to the compression of UK hGGE debates in several ways, for example, by excluding various social actors and their viewpoints.
The study describes hGGE as the latest in a series of biotechnology debates in the UK that encourage the liberalisation of embryo policy through a process whereby successive technologies are regulated, referred to as regulatory slippage. I argue that if steps are not taken to develop the quality of debate, hGGE may be legalised prior to comprehensive ethical discussion on the topic. I conclude by suggesting a series of practicable policy recommendations for improving hGGE debates
