CBA and Precaution: Policy-Making about Emerging Technologies

Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy

The release of genetically engineered organisms into the shared environment raises scientific, ethical, and societal issues. Using some form of democratic deliberation to provide the public with a voice on the policies that govern these technologies is important, but there has not been enough attention to how we should connect public deliberation to the existing regulatory process. Drawing on lessons from previous public deliberative efforts by U.S. federal agencies, we identify several practical issues that will need to be addressed if relevant federal agencies are to undertake public deliberative activities to inform decision-making about gene editing in the wild. We argue that, while agencies may have institutional capacity to undertake public deliberative activities, there may not be sufficient political support for them to do so. Advocates of public deliberation need to make a stronger case to Congress about why federal agencies should be encouraged and supported to conduct public deliberations.

Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild

Genetic editing technologies have long been used to modify domesticated nonhuman animals and plants. Recently, attention and funding have also been directed toward projects for modifying nonhuman organisms in the shared environment-that is, in the "wild." Interest in gene editing nonhuman organisms for wild release is motivated by a variety of goals, and such releases hold the possibility of significant, potentially transformative benefit. The technologies also pose risks and are often surrounded by a high uncertainty. Given the stakes, scientists and advisory bodies have called for public engagement in the science, ethics, and governance of gene editing research in nonhuman organisms. Most calls for public engagement lack details about how to design a broad public deliberation, including questions about participation, how to structure the conversations, how to report on the content, and how to link the deliberations to policy. We summarize the key design elements that can improve broad public deliberations about gene editing in the wild.

Putting our best foot forward: Clinical, treatment-based and ethical considerations of nusinersen therapy in Canada for spinal muscular atrophy

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is the most common genetic cause of infant mortality. SMA is a spectral disorder and is categorised based on symptom onset and severity. The median life expectancy for infants with SMA presenting before 6 months of age is less than 2 years without respiratory support. To date, there is no cure for SMA. In June 2017, nusinersen was approved in Canada as the first disease-modifying drug for SMA because of its demonstrated benefits on motor function and survival in clinical trials. However, with a price tag of almost 1 million dollars for the first year of therapy, careful clinical, treatment-based and ethical consideration of the principles of (i) best interests; (ii) universality; (iii) portability; (iv) public administration; (v) accessibility; and (vi) comprehensiveness are important guideposts to ensure transparent and equitable allocation of health-care resources for nusinersen and all other future orphan drugs.