Page - 94 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

The first question ties in with an experience that we all know: Buzzing and stinging mosquitoes in summer: The answers point to different dimensions: Avoidance of damages, which focus specifically on the respondents. In addition, the damage is disruptive but not serious. The consequences are also central to the second answer, which in a first step does not concern humans, but those animals that have mosquitoes in their diet. Ecological consequences on a third level. A concrete geographical level opens up the second question, which asks about the admissibility of altering the mosquitoes transmitting ZIKA viruses in South America. How does the perception of interventions change when it no longer directly affects us? The response options then also refer to infection in the context of damage avoidance. The focus there is on benefit for an international community. In contrast, the second answer two negates the possibility of referring a value to nature itself. Relatively, answer option number three links admissibility to the consequences of other plants, animals, and people in the region. Since the first question is based on shared experiences and the second question is aimed at consequences that would not directly affect visitors, question number three brings together both perspectives in a fictitious scenario. The focus on damage prevention, which takes account of individuals and their close social environment, justifies the intervention; a strong concept of nature prohibits it. Answer three, on the other hand, considers the intervention to be permissible only in terms of the consequences for the garden and other living beings. Discussing this in a context of genome editing inevitably leads to one of the possible applications: Gene-drive-systems.1 In this regard CRISPR can be used to influence populations and thus possibly reduce species to the extent that they are made infertile. A “world without mosquitoes” is certainly not propagated by any scientist. For us, the questions are an invitation to imagine; it forms a hinge to everyday experience. And it puts the respondents in the position of experts. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". Technology is not in the foreground here (it is not mentioned explicitly at all). The point is to shift perspectives. As striking as these questions are, they contain dimensions that are relevant for the attitude to certain procedures: here it is also a question of loss prevention, risk assessment and categorical questions of admissibility.2 Public event A public event which was entitled “World without mosquitos? New methods of genome editing” was the framework in which biological, ethical and governmental aspects were brought together. While they were doing this, the facilitator asked exactly the same questions as on the postcards and invited the visitors to answer them with their cell phones. We asked the questions in a context, which was closely linked to gene-drive-systems. Participants voted on the questions as follows. All participants’ answers agree that most of them prefer interventions over other considerations for the different scenarios. However, the profiteers differ considerably (respondents, 59% agree; world community, 51 % agree; social proximity 53 % agree).3 The “benefits” seem to be most obvious in the answers to the first questions. The other two scenarios, on the other hand, show 1 For a closer look at the corresponding possibilities please see: Giese, Bernd in this volume. (p. 82) 2 For a discussion see Johannes Frieß and Wolfgang Liebert in this issue. (p. 107) 3 For more information on the concrete evaluations of the results, see: (Diekämper in prep) 94