In Science and Technology Studies (STS), scholars highlight the guiding role of expectations, promises, visions, and assumptions of scientists, shaping the development of research fields and technologies. Making these expectations and visions explicit, opens them to reflection and adjustment by diverse stakeholders, fostering more responsible and inclusive technological innovation. In this paper, we study the visions and expectations of scientists in academia and in industry (n = 19) in the field of epigenetics and epigenetic editing. Epigenetic editing is a technique that is used to modify the epigenome to gain regulatory control of gene expression. In the future, this could lead to the development of new biomedicines and biotechnologies to improve crops. We found that respondents broadly endorsed a vision of epigenetic editing as being milder and safer than genetic editing, and therefore more acceptable to the public, making it easier to embed epigenetic applications in society. However, respondents simultaneously questioned some of the underlying assumptions of this dominantly held vision and consequently expressed reservations. Although a limited number of studies have shown that epigenetic edits can be reversible and stable, uncertainty exists whether this is generalizable. Reservations are also linked to the possibility of heritability of edits, and to the level of complexity of (epi)genetic networks. In general, respondents were uncertain about the readiness of the technology to be currently implemented in the medical or agricultural sector. This contrasts with the current move of some companies to initiate clinical trials. To allow for more inclusive decision-making and co-shaping the research field and future applications, it is important to improve reflexivity among researchers and to enable public engagement. Having made these visions explicit, they become a topic for scientists, policymakers, and the public to reflect on and adapt or adjust, allowing for the co-creation of technological innovation.
Baalen et al. (Fri,) studied this question.