Department of Public Health

What is the research project about?

The project MORALMAP examines how people talk about new plant breeding technologies (NBTs) such as gene editing on social media. It will analyse posts and comments to see which moral ideas – for example fairness, care for the vulnerable or respect for nature and tradition – shape people’s views. It will then test different ways of explaining NBTs that connect with these moral concerns. To-gether with farmers, NGOs, industry and authorities, it will develop practical communication guidelines that help people discuss NBTs more openly and constructively.

Why is the research project important?

NBTs could help crops cope with climate change, pests and diseases, but their success depends on public trust. There are ethical questions about these technologies that the public are rightly concerned about. However, at present public discussions are often tense and fragmented, making it hard to weigh risks and benefits calmly. By mapping the moral “fault lines” in these debates and co-designing new messages, MORALMAP aims to support more informed public choices, strengthen dialogue be-tween science and society, and contribute to socially responsible innovation in plant breeding.

In most countries, including Switzerland, all non-human animal-based experiments are submitted to animal experimentation oversight bodies to evaluate their scientific relevance relative to animal welfare concerns (harm-benefit analysis) and decide whether they should proceed. Within the framework of the harm-benefit analysis (HBA), animal research may thus be justified by legitimate interests of society, in particular, human medical and healthcare advancement. However, patients, who are generally cited as the end beneficiaries of biomedical research using animals, have had little say in animal research ethics, policy, regulation, and the licensing of animal research projects. This project aims to understand and ethically analyse the current decision-making process and decision criteria of the HBA. It also aims to identify legitimate decision criteria from a diverse stakeholder perspective, including people affected by health conditions. Finally, it aims to explore patient and public involvement (PPI) as a notion in animal research endeavours to clarify the decision criteria. The project uses mixed methods: first, a comprehensive analysis of the literature to understand and analyse the current decision-making process, followed by the use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative (online surveys with qualitative components and focus groups) methodologies to collect novel data from diverse stakeholders (scientists, patients, students, the general public and members of oversight bodies) in Swiss society. Since limited openness about animal research evaluation is believed to undermine public trust, this research will create awareness by bringing the discussion about animal research to Swiss society. In effect, clarifying decision criteria by involving diverse groups of stakeholders will increase public trust in the regulation and evaluation of animal research. Finally, exploring the aspects of patients’ involvement in oversight bodies will push the boundaries of PPI in preclinical research and contribute to the public debate about the legitimacy of animal research, paving the way for more societally acceptable and agreeable policies regarding animal experimentation.