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

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.

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.