Toward Anticipatory Governance of Human Genome Editing: A Critical Review of Scholarly Governance Discourse

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.

The divide so wide: Public perspectives on the role of human genome editing in the US healthcare system

We report findings from two open-framed focus groups eliciting informed public opinion about the rapidly developing technology of human genome editing in the context of the US healthcare system. Results reveal that participants take a dim view of the present healthcare system, articulating extensive concerns about the accessibility and affordability of care. They feel that, unless these problems are resolved, they stand little chance of benefiting from any eventual human genome editing treatments. They prioritize improvement in healthcare access well above human genome editing development, and human genome editing regulation and oversight above human genome editing research. These results reveal substantial divergence between public perspectives and expert discourse on human genome editing. The latter attends primarily to the moral permissibility of technical categories of human genome editing research and how to treat human genome editing within existing regulatory and oversight systems rather than broader political-economic and healthcare access concerns. This divergence illustrates the importance of openly framed public engagement around emerging technologies.

The technology, opportunities, and challenges of Synthetic Biological Intelligence

Integrating neural cultures developed through synthetic biology methods with digital computing has enabled the early development of Synthetic Biological Intelligence (SBI). Recently, key studies have emphasized the advantages of biological neural systems in some information processing tasks. However, neither the technology behind this early development, nor the potential ethical opportunities or challenges, have been explored in detail yet. Here, we review the key aspects that facilitate the development of SBI and explore potential applications. Considering these foreseeable use cases, various ethical implications are proposed. Ultimately, this work aims to provide a robust framework to structure ethical considerations to ensure that SBI technology can be both researched and applied responsibly.

Application of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology in various fields: A review

CRISPR-Cas9 has emerged as a revolutionary tool that enables precise and efficient modifications of the genetic material. This review provides a comprehensive overview of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and its applications in genome editing. We begin by describing the fundamental principles of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, explaining how the system utilizes a single guide RNA (sgRNA) to direct the Cas9 nuclease to specific DNA sequences in the genome, resulting in targeted double-stranded breaks. In this review, we provide in-depth explorations of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and its applications in agriculture, medicine, environmental sciences, fisheries, nanotechnology, bioinformatics, and biotechnology. We also highlight its potential, ongoing research, and the ethical considerations and controversies surrounding its use. This review might contribute to the understanding of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and its implications in various fields, paving the way for future developments and responsible applications of this transformative technology.

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."

Seven open questions in the futures of human genome editing

Scholarly discussion around the governance of human genome editing (HGE) recognizes that development and application of HGE techniques could result in unexpected societal outcomes. However, it contains few to no methodological models for how to anticipate, prepare for, or shape such outcomes. This article presents early-stage results from research guided by anticipatory governance, a framework for broad expert and public consideration of innovation processes and purposes. We present and discuss key themes emerging from a set of future-oriented interviews with genome editing practitioners and experts, designed to inform broadly scoped deliberations about plausible futures of HGE. We articulate our results as seven "open questions," the answers to which will be important components of HGE's eventual shape and outcomes. Some themes are perennial in studies of science and society, and others are more novel to HGE. Each helps to reframe HGE beyond a simple comparison of risk and benefit. Such reframing opens up new and important terrain for discussion among policymakers, academics, scientists, and publics. We suggest that discussion framed around broad and reflexive questions like those presented here will help governance efforts to better acknowledge and flexibly respond to the uncertainty and complexities of HGE developments.

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.