Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project

The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns

The possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos has generated significant discussion and interest as a matter of science and ethics. While it holds significant promise to prevent or treat disease, research on and potential clinical applications of human embryo editing also raise ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This systematic review included 223 publications to identify the ethical arguments, reasons, and concerns that have been offered for and against the editing of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We identified six major themes: risk/harm; potential benefit; oversight; informed consent; justice, equity, and other social considerations; and eugenics. We explore these themes and provide an overview and analysis of the critical points in the current literature.

The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues

Given the potentially large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. However, the explicit goals of such PSE efforts often remain poorly defined. In this program report, we outline the goals of our Dutch project called De DNA dialogen (The DNA dialogues). We believe that setting explicit goals in advance is essential to enable meaningful PSE efforts. Moreover, it enables the evaluation of our engagement efforts. The following four goals, which result from intensive consultations among the transdisciplinary projects' consortium members and based on the literature, form the foundation for how we will engage the public and stakeholders in deliberation about HGGE: 1) Enable publics and stakeholders to deliberate on "what if" questions, before considering "whether" and "how" questions regarding HGGE, 2) Investigate agreement and disagreement in values and beliefs regarding HGGE in order to agree and disagree more precisely, 3) Involve diverse publics with various perspectives, with a focus on those that are typically underrepresented in PSE, 4) Enable societally aligned policy making by providing policymakers, health care professionals and legal experts insight into how values are weighed and ascribed meaning in the context of HGGE by various publics, and how these values relate to the principles of democratic rule of law and fundamental rights. The effort to describe our goals in detail may serve as an example and can inform future initiatives striving for open science and open governance in the context of PSE.

Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens' Juries

In this paper, I take seriously calls for public engagement in human genome editing decision-making by endorsing the convening of a "Citizens Jury" in conjunction with the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing's next summit scheduled for March 6-8, 2023. This institutional modification promises a more inclusive, deliberative, and impactful form of engagement than standard bioethics engagement opportunities, such as comment periods, by serving both normative and political purposes in the quest to offer moral guidance on gene editing. In examining evidence from the Australian Citizens' Jury on Genome Editing convened in 2021, I argue that Citizens' Juries should work in tandem with governing institutions to preserve the role of expertise while ensuring that the diverse views of the public are incorporated into their final reports as well. First, early inclusivity allows "the people" to hold agenda setting power through helping to set resource priorities. This also makes a downstream deliberative event, such as the called for Global Citizens' Assembly, both more likely to occur and more influential on policy. Second, Jury's diverse composition promises substantive contributions to the Commission's work. Third, Citizens' Juries could help to cultivate the Commission's trustworthiness.

Heritable genome editing: ethical aspects of a developing domain

In the past decade, scientific developments in human germline genome editing (GGE) have reinvigorated questions about research ethics, responsible innovation, and what it means to do good in the field of reproductive biology and medicine. In recent years, it has become part of the ethical debate on GGE whether categorical objections about (un)naturalness, dignity, respect for the gene pool as common heritage, are and should be supplemented by more pragmatic questions about safety, utility, efficacy, and potential 'misuse', which seem to become more dominant in the moral discussion. This mini-review summarizes the morally relevant aspects of the rapidly developing domain of GGE, focusing on reproductive applications and with special attention to the ethical questions pertaining to how this technology may affect the interests of those that come to be by means of it. While vital, this encompasses more than safety considerations. Taking this perspective, it will be crucial to engage with normative questions about how GGE maps on the importance of accommodating future parents' preference to have genetically related children, and how far we should go to facilitate this. Similarly, a comprehensive ethical debate about 'appropriate application' of GGE cannot shake off the more fundamental question about how notions like 'normalcy', 'quality of life', and 'disability' can be conceptualized. This is crucial in view of respecting persons whichever traits they have and in view of acceptable boundaries to parental responsibilities.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan

Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.

"What if" should precede "whether" and "how" in the social conversation around human germline gene editing

Given the potential large ethical and societal implications of human germline gene editing (HGGE) the urgent need for public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) has been repeatedly expressed. In this short communication, we aim to provide directions for broad and inclusive PSE by emphasizing the importance of futures literacy, which is a skill to imagine diverse and multiple futures and to use these as lenses to look at the present anew. By first addressing "what if" questions in PSE, different futures come into focus and limitations that arise when starting with the "whether" or "how" questions about HGGE can be avoided. Futures literacy can also aid in the goal of societal alignment, as "what if" questions can be answered in many different ways, thereby opening up the conversation to explore a multitude of values and needs of various publics. Broad and inclusive PSE on HGGE starts with asking the right questions.

The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.