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

The methodological and ethical concerns of genetic studies of same-sex sexual behavior

Same-sex sexual behavior has long interested genetics researchers in part because, while there is evidence of heritability, the trait as typically defined is associated with fewer offspring. Investigations of this phenomenon began in the 1990s with linkage studies and continue today with the advent of genome-wide association studies. As this body of research grows, so does critical scientific and ethical review of it. Here, we provide a targeted overview of existing genetics studies on same-sex sexual behavior, highlight the ethical and scientific considerations of this nascent field, and provide recommendations developed by the authors to enhance social and ethical responsibility.

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.

Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance

While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for "enhancement" remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call "preventive strengthening research" (or "PSR") to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals' resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three "candidate criteria" merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed.

Challenges of therapeutic applications and regenerative capacities of urine based stem cells in oral, and maxillofacial reconstruction

Urine-derived stem cells (USCs) have gained the attention of researchers in the biomedical field in the past few years . Regarding the several varieties of cells that have been used for this purpose, USCs have demonstrated mesenchymal stem cell-like properties, such as differentiation and immunomodulation. Furthermore, they could be differentiated into several lineages. This is very interesting for regenerative techniques based on cell therapy. This review will embark on describing their separation, and profiling. We will specifically describe the USCs characteristics, in addition to their differentiation potential. Then, we will introduce and explore the primary uses of USCs. These involve thier utilization as a platform to produce stem cells, however, we shall concentrate on the utilization of USCs for therapeutic, and regenerative orofacial applications, providing an in-depth evaluation of this purpose. The final portion will address the limitations and challenges of their implementation in regenerative dentistry.

Anticipatory gaps challenge the public governance of heritable human genome editing

Considering public moral attitudes is a hallmark of the anticipatory governance of emerging biotechnologies, such as heritable human genome editing. However, such anticipatory governance often overlooks that future morality is open to change and that future generations may perform different moral assessments on the very biotechnologies we are trying to govern in the present. In this article, we identify an 'anticipatory gap' that has not been sufficiently addressed in the discussion on the public governance of heritable genome editing, namely, uncertainty about the moral visions of future generations about the emerging applications that we are currently attempting to govern now. This paper motivates the relevance of this anticipatory gap, identifying the challenges it generates and offering various recommendations so that moral uncertainty does not lead to governance paralysis with regard to human germline genome editing.

Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?

Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

Biosafety, biosecurity, and bioethics

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of biosafety in the biomedical sciences. While it is often assumed that biosafety is a purely technical matter that has little to do with philosophy or the humanities, biosafety raises important ethical issues that have not been adequately examined in the scientific or bioethics literature. This article reviews some pivotal events in the history of biosafety and biosecurity and explores three different biosafety topics that generate significant ethical concerns, i.e., risk assessment, risk management, and risk distribution. The article also discusses the role of democratic governance in the oversight of biosafety and offers some suggestions for incorporating bioethics into biosafety practice, education, and policy.

Identifying Māori perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand

A comment article summarizing a range of research activities that contribute to understanding evolving Māori perspectives on Gene Editing and how they might contribute to future regulation.