Page - 93 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

Whereas in other areas of application of genome editing an eudaimonistic perspective proved dominant over a moral one, in talking about gene drives the two interlock and block each other in this early stage of negotiating. Based on our assumption this is due to the fact that, firstly, people do not recognize themselves as affected directly and, secondly, because – unlike genome editing in general – a highly charged concept of nature comes into play. Nevertheless, in a nutshell: in terms of media attention and reporting, there is no lack of interest in the topic of genome editing. At the same time, surveys conclude that genome editing is unknown to large parts of the diverse public spheres (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung 2017). But if we now assume that the technologies are as significant as advertised, then this gap has to be filled. The existing narratives do not yet seem to be sufficient for this. Therefore, the aim is therefore to create deliberative places of debate and sensuously gripping narratives that, on the one hand, create a relationship between the charged concept of nature in these debates and questions of good life that can be connected to everyday life beyond simply imagined scientific communication and, on the other hand, preformatted moral patterns of argumentation. Trials and practice at MfN In our view CRISPR represents an opportunity to engage creatively with science outside well- known patterns of promises and fears and beyond the current debate. We would like to present one narrative line we performed in the museum, beginning in autumn 2017. Figure 2: Postcard, MfN 2017. 93