Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative

Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing

In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts' input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values-specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics' values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.

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.

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.

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.

Eight Strategies to Engineer Acceptance of Human Germline Modifications

Until recently, scientific consensus held firm that genetically manipulated embryos created through methods including Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy or human germline genome editing should not be used to initiate a pregnancy. In countries that have relevant laws pertaining to heritable human germline modifications, the vast majority prohibit or restrict this practice. In the last several years, scholars have observed a transformation of scientific and policy restrictions with insistent calls for creating a regulatory pathway. Multiple stakeholders highlight the role of social consensus and public engagement for governance of heritable human germline modifications. However, in the drive to gain public acceptance and lift restrictions, some proponents provide distorted or misleading narratives designed to influence public perception and incrementally shift the consensus. This article describes eight discrete strategies that proponents employ to influence framing, sway public opinion, and revise policymaking of human germline modifications in a manner that undermines honest engagement.

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."

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is a real possibility. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui's 'CRISPR'd babies'. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation's possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is now possible. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui’s ‘CRISPR’d babies’. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation’s possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.

A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results

This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.

Bioethics in human embryology: the double-edged sword of embryo research

There has been a significant increase in the use of assisted reproductive therapies (ARTs) over the past several decades, allowing many couples with infertility to conceive. Despite the achievements in this field, a mounting body of evidence concerning the epigenetic risks associated with ART interventions such as ovarian hormonal stimulation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and in vitro culture (IVC) of oocytes and embryos has also emerged. Induced development of multiple follicles, the IVC media itself, and extended culture may alter the epigenome of both gametes and embryos, resulting in yet to be fully understood developmental, postnatal, and adult life health consequences. Investigators have attempted to decipher the molecular mechanisms mediating ART-induced epigenetic changes using either human samples or animal models with some success. As research in this field continues to expand, the ethical responsibilities of embryologists and researchers have become critically important. Here, we briefly discuss the ethical aspects of ART research, concentrating on the constraints arising from the perceived 'unnaturalness' of many of these procedures. Secondly, we focus on the bioethics and morality of human embryo research in general and how ethically acceptable model systems may be used to mimic early human embryogenesis. Lastly, we review the 14-day culture limit of human embryos and the notion that this rule could be considered of taken into account using new technologies and cues from animal models. The 'black box' of early post-implantation embryogenesis might be revealed using embryo models. As long as this distinct moral line has been drawn and closely followed, we should not fear scientific growth in embryo research. Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) is ethically acceptable, research with human embryos to improve its success raises serious ethical concerns that are in need of constant revisiting.Glossary index: Moral status: the ascription of obligations and rights to embryos on the basis of sentience; Sentience: the capacity of the developing embryo to experience feelings and sensations, such as the awareness of pain; Ectogenesis: the growth of the embryo in an artificial environment outside the mother's body.

You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

"Be careful what you wish for": This adage guides both how this project came to life, and how the topic covered in this review continues to unfold. What began as talks between two friends on shared interests in military history led to a 4-year discussion about how our science curriculum does little to introduce our students to societal and ethical impacts of the science they are taught. What emerged was a curricular idea centered on how "good intentions" of some were developed and twisted by others to result in disastrous consequences of state-sanctioned eugenics. In this article, we take the reader (as we did our students) through the long and soiled history of eugenic thought, from its genesis to the present. Though our focus is on European and American eugenics, we will show how the interfaces and interactions between science and society have evolved over time but have remained ever constant. Four critical 'case studies' will also be employed here for deep, thoughtful exploration on a particular eugenic issue. The goal of the review, as it is with our course, is not to paint humanity with a single evil brush. Instead, our ambition is to introduce our students/readers to the potential for harm through the misapplication and misappropriation of science and scientific technology, and to provide them with the tools to ask the appropriate questions of their scientists, physicians, and politicians.

A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol

This article outlines the protocol for a prospective study for virtual deliberative public engagement on heritable genome editing in humans. The study intends to create a platform for a diverse group of 25–30 South Africans to engage with a facilitator and each other on 15 policy questions regarding heritable genome editing, with a focus on: a) the prevention of heritable genetic conditions; b) editing for immunity; and c) editing for enhancement. The aim is to understand the views on these issues so as to inform further research and policy, and to analyse the process and effect of deliberation on opinion. Participants will be expected to study the provided resource materials and pass the entrance exam—aligning with the protocols of the Harvard Personal Genome Project. In this way, the commitment, openness and basic knowledge of the candidates will be tested to ascertain whether they are suitable participants for the deliberative engagement.

The DNA-Dialogue: A Broad Societal Dialogue About Human Germline Genome Editing in the Netherlands

For years, calls for public involvement in the debate concerning the acceptability of human germline genome editing (HGGE) have been made. A multidisciplinary consortium of 11 organizations in the Netherlands organized a broad societal dialogue to inquire about the views of Dutch society toward HGGE. The project aimed to reach a wide and diverse audience and to stimulate a collective process of deliberative opinion forming and reflection. To that end, several instruments and formats were developed and employed. We present the results of 27 moderated dialogues organized between October 2019 and October 2020. Overall, participants of the dialogues were capable of assessing and discussing the subject of HGGE in a nuanced way. Analysis of these dialogues shows that in general, participants had no fundamental and absolute objections toward HGGE technology. However, they only deemed HGGE to be acceptable when it is used to prevent serious heritable diseases and under strict conditions, without affecting important (societal) values. There was a small group of participants who found HGGE fundamentally unacceptable because it would cross natural, socio-ethical, or religious boundaries.