The ambiguous nature of epigenetic responsibility

Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions

Targeted modifications of the human epigenome, epigenome editing (EE), are around the corner. For EE, techniques similar to genome editing (GE) techniques are used. While in GE the genetic information is changed by directly modifying DNA, intervening in the epigenome requires modifying the configuration of DNA, for example, how it is folded. This does not come with alterations in the base sequence ('genetic code'). To date, there is almost no ethical debate about EE, whereas the discussions about GE are voluminous. Our article introduces EE into bioethics by translating knowledge from science to ethics and by comparing the risks of EE with those of GE. We, first (I), make the case that a broader ethical debate on EE is due, provide scientific background on EE, compile potential use-cases and recap previous debates. We then (II) compare EE and GE and suggest that the severity of risks of novel gene technologies depends on three factors: (i) the choice of an ex vivo versus an in vivo editing approach, (ii) the time of intervention and intervention windows and (iii) the targeted diseases. Moreover, we show why germline EE is not effective and reject the position of strong epigenetic determinism. We conclude that EE is not always ethically preferable to GE in terms of risks, and end with suggestions for next steps in the current ethical debate on EE by briefly introducing ethical challenges of new areas of preventive applications of EE (III).

The ethical aspects of exposome research: a systematic review

In recent years, exposome research has been put forward as the next frontier for the study of human health and disease. Exposome research entails the analysis of the totality of environmental exposures and their corresponding biological responses within the human body. Increasingly, this is operationalized by big-data approaches to map the effects of internal as well as external exposures using smart sensors and multiomics technologies. However, the ethical implications of exposome research are still only rarely discussed in the literature. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the academic literature regarding both the exposome and underlying research fields and approaches, to map the ethical aspects that are relevant to exposome research. We identify five ethical themes that are prominent in ethics discussions: the goals of exposome research, its standards, its tools, how it relates to study participants, and the consequences of its products. Furthermore, we provide a number of general principles for how future ethics research can best make use of our comprehensive overview of the ethical aspects of exposome research. Lastly, we highlight three aspects of exposome research that are most in need of ethical reflection: the actionability of its findings, the epidemiological or clinical norms applicable to exposome research, and the meaning and action-implications of bias.

Epigenetic citizenship and political claims-making: the ethics of molecularizing structural racism

Epigenetics has generated excitement over its potential to inform health disparities research by capturing the molecular signatures of social experiences. This paper highlights the concerns implied by these expectations of epigenetics research and discusses the possible ramifications of 'molecularizing' the forms of social suffering currently examined in epigenetics studies. Researchers working with oppressed populations-particularly racially marginalized groups-should further anticipate how their results might be interpreted to avoid fueling prejudiced claims of biological essentialism. Introducing the concept of 'epigenetic citizenship,' this paper considers the ways environmentally responsive methylation cues may be used in direct-to-consumer testing, healthcare, and biopolitical interactions. The conclusion addresses the future of social epigenetics research and the utility of an epigenetic citizenship framework.

Microbiome in Precision Psychiatry: An Overview of the Ethical Challenges Regarding Microbiome Big Data and Microbiome-Based Interventions

There has been a spurt in both fundamental and translational research that examines the underlying mechanisms of the human microbiome in psychiatric disorders. The personalized and dynamic features of the human microbiome suggest the potential of its manipulation for precision psychiatry in ways to improve mental health and avoid disease. However, findings in the field of microbiome also raise philosophical and ethical questions. From a philosophical point of view, they may yet be another attempt at providing a biological cause for phenomena that ultimately cannot be so easily localized. From an ethical point of view, it is relevant that the human gut microbiome comprises data on the individual's lifestyle, disease history, previous medications, and mental health. Massive datasets of microbiome sequences are collected to facilitate comparative studies to identify specific links between the microbiome and mental health. Although this emerging research domain may show promise for psychiatric patients, it is surrounded by ethical challenges regarding patient privacy, health risks, effects on personal identity, and concerns about responsibility. This narrative overview displays the roles and advances of microbiome research in psychiatry and discusses the philosophical and ethical implications of microbiome big data and microbiome-based interventions for psychiatric patients. We also investigate whether these issues are really "new," or "old wine in new bottles."

Researcher perspectives on ethics considerations in epigenetics: an international survey

Over the past decade, bioethicists, legal scholars and social scientists have started to investigate the potential implications of epigenetic research and technologies on medicine and society. There is growing literature discussing the most promising opportunities, as well as arising ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). This paper explores the views of epigenetic researchers about some of these discussions. From January to March 2020, we conducted an online survey of 189 epigenetic researchers working in 31 countries. We questioned them about the scope of their field, opportunities in different areas of specialization, and ELSI in the conduct of research and knowledge translation. We also assessed their level of concern regarding four emerging non-medical applications of epigenetic testing—i.e., in life insurance, forensics, immigration and direct-to-consumer testing. Although there was strong agreement on DNA methylation, histone modifications, 3D structure of chromatin and nucleosomes being integral elements of the field, there was considerable disagreement on transcription factors, RNA interference, RNA splicing and prions. The most prevalent ELSI experienced or witnessed by respondents were in obtaining timely access to epigenetic data in existing databases, and in the communication of epigenetic findings by the media. They expressed high levels of concern regarding non-medical applications of epigenetics, echoing cautionary appraisals in the social sciences and humanities literature.

Ethical implications of epigenetics in the era of personalized medicine

Given the increasing research activity on epigenetics to monitor human diseases and its connection with lifestyle and environmental expositions, the field of epigenetics has attracted a great deal of interest also at the ethical and societal level. In this review, we will identify and discuss current ethical, legal and social issues of epigenetics research in the context of personalized medicine. The review covers ethical aspects such as how epigenetic information should impact patient autonomy and the ability to generate an intentional and voluntary decision, the measures of data protection related to privacy and confidentiality derived from epigenome studies (e.g., risk of discrimination, patient re-identification and unexpected findings) or the debate in the distribution of responsibilities for health (i.e., personal versus public responsibilities). We pay special attention to the risk of social discrimination and stigmatization as a consequence of inferring information related to lifestyle and environmental exposures potentially contained in epigenetic data. Furthermore, as exposures to the environment and individual habits do not affect all populations equally, the violation of the principle of distributive justice in the access to the benefits of clinical epigenetics is discussed. In this regard, epigenetics represents a great opportunity for the integration of public policy measures aimed to create healthier living environments. Whether these public policies will coexist or, in contrast, compete with strategies reinforcing the personalized medicine interventions needs to be considered. The review ends with a reflection on the main challenges in epigenetic research, some of them in a technical dimension (e.g., assessing causality or establishing reference epigenomes) but also in the ethical and social sphere (e.g., risk to add an epigenetic determinism on top of the current genetic one). In sum, integration into life science investigation of social experiences such as exposure to risk, nutritional habits, prejudice and stigma, is imperative to understand epigenetic variation in disease. This pragmatic approach is required to locate clinical epigenetics out of the experimental laboratories and facilitate its implementation into society.

Auditing the Editor: A Review of Key Translational Issues in Epigenetic Editing

Currently, most advances in site-specific epigenetic editing for human use are concentrated in basic research, yet, there is considerable interest to translate this technology beyond the bench. This review highlights recent developments with epigenetic editing technology in comparison with the canonical CRISPR-Cas genome editing, as well as the epistemic and ethical considerations with preemptive translation of epigenetic editing into clinical or commercial use in humans. Key considerations in safety, equity, and access to epigenetic editing are highlighted, with a spotlight on the ethical, legal, and social issues of this technology in the context of global health equity.

"CRISPR for Disabilities: How to Self-Regulate" or Something?

The development of the CRISPR gene editing technique has been hyped as a technique that could fundamentally change scientific research and its clinical application. Unrecognized is the fact that it joins other technologies that have tried and failed under the same discourse of scientific hype. These technologies, like gene therapy and stem cell research, have moved quickly passed basic research into clinical application with dire consequences. Before hastily moving to clinical applications, it is necessary to consider basic research and determine how CRISPR/Cas systems should be applied. In the case of single gene diseases, that application is expected to have positive impacts, but as we shift to more complex diseases, the impact could be unintentionally negative. In the context of common disabilities, the level of genetic complexity may render this technology useless but potentially toxic, aggravating a social discourse that devalues those with disabilities. This paper intends to define the issues related to disability that are associated with using the CRIPSR/Cas system in basic research. It also aims to provide a decision tree to help determine whether the technology should be utilized or if alternative approaches beyond scientific research could lead to a better use of limited funding resources.

Exploring the Ethics of Implementation of Epigenomics Technologies in Cancer Screening: A Focus Group Study

New epigenomics technologies are being developed and used for the detection and prediction of various types of cancer. By allowing for timely intervention or preventive measures, epigenomics technologies show promise for public health, notably in population screening. In order to assess whether implementation of epigenomics technologies in population screening may be morally acceptable, it is important to understand – in an early stage of development – ethical and societal issues that may arise. We held 3 focus groups with experts in science and technology studies (STS) (n = 13) in the Netherlands, on 3 potential future applications of epigenomic technologies in screening programmes of increasing scope: cervical cancer, female cancers and ‘global’ cancer. On the basis of these discussions, this paper identifies ethical issues pertinent to epigenomics-based population screening, such as risk communication, trust and public acceptance; personal responsibility, stigmatisation and societal pressure, and data protection and data governance. It also points out how features of epigenomics (eg, modifiability) and changing concepts (eg, of cancer) may challenge the existing evaluative framework for screening programmes. This paper aims to anticipate and prepare for future ethical challenges when epigenomics technologies can be tested and introduced in public health settings.

Toward a Framework for Assessing Privacy Risks in Multi-Omic Research and Databases

While the accumulation and increased circulation of genomic data have captured much attention over the past decade, privacy risks raised by the diversification and integration of omics have been largely overlooked. In this paper, we propose the outline of a framework for assessing privacy risks in multi-omic research and databases. Following a comparison of privacy risks associated with genomic and epigenomic data, we dissect ten privacy risk-impacting omic data properties that affect either the risk of re-identification of research participants, or the sensitivity of the information potentially conveyed by biological data. We then propose a three-step approach for the assessment of privacy risks in the multi-omic era. Thus, we lay grounds for a data property-based, 'pan-omic' approach that moves away from genetic exceptionalism. We conclude by inviting our peers to refine these theoretical foundations, put them to the test in their respective fields, and translate our approach into practical guidance.

Epigenetics and DOHaD: how translation to predictive testing will require a better public understanding

Epigenetics is likely to play a role in the mediation of the effects of genes and environment in risk for many non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) theory presents unique opportunities regarding the possibility of early life interventions to alter the epigenetic makeup of an individual, thereby modifying their risk for a variety of NCDs. While it is important to determine how we can lower the risk of these NCDs, it is equally important to understand how the public's knowledge and opinion of DOHaD and epigenetic concepts may influence their willingness to undertake such interventions for themselves and their children. In this review, we provide an overview of epigenetics, DOHaD, NCDs, and the links between them. We explore the issues surrounding using epigenetics to identify those at increased risk of NCDs, including the concept of predictive testing of children. We also outline what is currently understood about the public's understanding and opinion of epigenetics, DOHaD, and their relation to NCDs. In doing so, we demonstrate that it is essential that future research explores the public's awareness and understanding of epigenetics and epigenetic concepts. This will provide much-needed information which will prepare health professionals for the introduction of epigenetic testing into future healthcare.

Prevention in the age of personal responsibility: epigenetic risk-predictive screening for female cancers as a case study

Epigenetic markers could potentially be used for risk assessment in risk-stratified population-based cancer screening programmes. Whereas current screening programmes generally aim to detect existing cancer, epigenetic markers could be used to provide risk estimates for not-yet-existing cancers. Epigenetic risk-predictive tests may thus allow for new opportunities for risk assessment for developing cancer in the future. Since epigenetic changes are presumed to be modifiable, preventive measures, such as lifestyle modification, could be used to reduce the risk of cancer. Moreover, epigenetic markers might be used to monitor the response to risk-reducing interventions. In this article, we address ethical concerns related to personal responsibility raised by epigenetic risk-predictive tests in cancer population screening. Will individuals increasingly be held responsible for their health, that is, will they be held accountable for bad health outcomes? Will they be blamed or subject to moral sanctions? We will illustrate these ethical concerns by means of a Europe-wide research programme that develops an epigenetic risk-predictive test for female cancers. Subsequently, we investigate when we can hold someone responsible for her actions. We argue that the standard conception of personal responsibility does not provide an appropriate framework to address these concerns. A different, prospective account of responsibility meets part of our concerns, that is, concerns about inequality of opportunities, but does not meet all our concerns about personal responsibility. We argue that even if someone is responsible on grounds of a negative and/or prospective account of responsibility, there may be moral and practical reasons to abstain from moral sanctions.

Translating developmental origins of health and disease in practice: health care providers' perspectives

Currently, there is limited knowledge on how health care providers perceive and understand the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), which may impact how they inform patients and their families throughout the perinatal period. This qualitative descriptive study explored if and how health care providers counsel on in utero programming and future health outcomes with parents, both preconception and during pregnancy. One-on-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 health care providers from varying health disciplines including obstetrics and gynaecology, midwifery, paediatrics, endocrinology and internal medicine. Audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: Knowledge about DOHaD, Counselling on DOHaD in Practice Settings and Impact of DOHaD on Health. Health care providers not only expressed excitement over the potential health benefits of DOHaD counselling but also indicated barriers to knowledge translation, including a lack of knowledge among providers and a disconnect between basic scientists and practitioners. All health care providers expressed concerns on how and when to introduce the concept of DOHaD when counselling patients and called for the development of practice guidelines. Counselling on DOHaD needs to be framed in a way that is empowering, minimising the potential of coercion and guilt. More interaction and collaboration are needed between health care providers and researchers to identify strategies to support knowledge translation generated from DOHaD research into practice settings.

Epigenetics, ethics, law and society: A multidisciplinary review of descriptive, instrumental, dialectical and reflexive analyses

Epigenetics, defined as 'the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence', has emerged as a promissory yet controversial field of scientific inquiry over the past decade. Scholars from many disciplines have formulated both optimistic and cautionary claims regarding its potential normative implications. This article provides a comprehensive review of the nascent literature at the crossroads of epigenetics, ethics, law and society. It describes nine emerging areas of discussion, relating to (1) the impact of epigenetics on the nature versus nurture dualism, (2) the potential resulting biologization of the social, (3) the meaning of epigenetics for public health, its potential influence on (4) reproduction and parenting, (5) political theory and (6) legal proceedings, and concerns regarding (7) stigmatization and discrimination, (8) privacy protection and (9) knowledge translation. While there is some degree of similarity between the nature and content of these areas and the abundant literature on ethical, legal and social issues in genetics, the potential implications of epigenetics ought not be conflated with the latter. Critical studies on epigenetics are emerging within a separate space of bioethical and biopolitical investigations and claims, with scholars from various epistemological standpoints utilizing distinct yet complementary analytical approaches.

The many meanings of autism: conceptual and ethical reflections

Autism is a polysemous concept. It is defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder that is diagnosed based on an assessment of behaviour and dysfunction. Autism also refers to a specific way of information or sensorial processing. For those diagnosed with autism, it is a real and shared experience. In this paper, I sketch the moral work that biological conceptions of autism perform. They help to conceptualize the diagnosis and associated challenges as real and they remove some of the blame from the diagnosed person and/or their parents. But such approaches also risk neglecting the role of behaviour as a meaningful reaction to experiences. In thinking about the ethics of autism research, diagnosis of autism, and autism care, the recent findings of epigenetics and systems biology may help us overcome the dichotomy between biology and psyche, and point the way to a more nuanced and ethical view. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: The meaning of 'autism' has different layers and as such autism is a polysemous concept. The lived experience of autistic people matters in research.

Epigenetics: ethics, politics, biosociality

BACKGROUND

Epigenetics is a burgeoning field of contemporary biosciences, which has attracted a lot of interest both in biomedical and in social sciences.

SOURCES OF DATA

Unsystematic literature analysis and retrospective mapping of highly cited work (source: Web of Science core collection) in the social sciences and humanities engaging with epigenetics.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Epigenetics poses no new ethical issue over and above those discussed in relation to genetics.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

However, it encourages a different framing and reflexivity on some of the commonly held categories in the moral uptake of scientific discoveries.

GROWING POINTS

Epigenetics presents us with normative questions that touch upon privacy, responsibility for individual health and for the well-being of future generations, as well as matters of health justice and equality of opportunities.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Epigenetic thinking could help us adjust and refine the problem frames and categories that inform our ethical and political questions with a complex biosocial description of situations, of persons or actions.

The paradox of care in behavioral epigenetics: Constructing early-life adversity in the lab

Many epigenetic studies focus on how stress, trauma, and care become molecularly embodied, affect gene expression without changing DNA sequence, and produce changes that influence the health and behavior of individuals, their offspring, and future generations. This article describes how care has become central in research on the epigenetic effects of early-life adversity. My analysis draws on two years of ethnographic research in a behavioral epigenetics laboratory in the United States. Building on traditions in feminist theory and the sociology of science, I document how care is enacted with research samples, experimental protocols, and behavioral endpoints in experiments with model organisms. My findings point to tensions between researchers' care for the data and their measurement of adversity as a discrete variable in the form of maternal interaction, neglect, and abuse. I argue that these tensions suggest a "paradox of care" that is actively shaping how epigenetic knowledge is produced and its impacts in society. My analysis shows how decisions in the lab are shaping new understandings of how early-life experiences influence health, with significant impacts on our expectations of mothers and pregnant women. This study suggests that the more complex explanations of health and development promised by epigenetics are simultaneously constructed and constrained by caring practices in the laboratory.

Gendered imaginaries: situating knowledge of epigenetic programming of health

Our paper explores the value-laden and epistemic resources that scientists working in epigenetics and developmental programming of health and disease (DOHaD) mobilise to produce scientific representations of pregnancy and parenthood, which in turn imagine norms, values, and responsibilities for the protection of future generations. In order to do so, we first describe the place of questions regarding the relative weight of paternal and maternal influences on the health of the offspring in the discursive formalisation of this research in scientific publications. This enables us to identify the mutual constitution of 'prototypes' (i.e. experimental designs, settings, techniques) and 'stereotypes' (i.e. social meanings, beliefs, norms and values) of parental roles in DOHaD and epigenetic biomedical sciences, by means of a specific gendered figuration of paternal influences: the 'father-as-sperm'. Second, and drawing from a set of interviews (N = 15), we describe a tension between this dominant, objectifying molecular discourse and the perspective of individual scientists. The situated perspective of individual researchers provides in fact evidence for a conflictual (moral and epistemic) economy of gendered engagements with parental figurations in DOHaD and epigenetic research, and consequently suggests a more fine-grained, as well as conflictual web of socio-political positioning of this 'knowledge' in its societal circulation.

Epigenetic Discrimination: Emerging Applications of Epigenetics Pointing to the Limitations of Policies Against Genetic Discrimination

Over more than two decades, various policies have been adopted worldwide to restrict the use of individual genetic information for non-medical reasons by third parties and prevent ‘genetic discrimination’. In this paper, we bring attention to the growing interest for individual epigenetic information by insurers and forensic scientists. We question whether such interest could lead to ‘epigenetic discrimination’ – the differential adverse treatment or abusive profiling of individuals or groups based on their actual or presumed epigenetic characteristics – and argue that we might already be facing the limitations of recently adopted normative approaches against genetic discrimination. First, we highlight some similarities and differences between genetic and epigenetic modifications, and stress potential challenges to regulating epigenetic discrimination. Second, we argue that most existing normative approaches against genetic discrimination fall short in providing oversight into the field of epigenetics. We conclude with a call for discussion on the issue, and the development of comprehensive and forward-looking preventive strategies against epigenetic discrimination.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance and social responsibility: perspectives from the social sciences

Research in environmental epigenetics explores how environmental exposures and life experiences such as food, toxins, stress or trauma can shape trajectories of human health and well-being in complex ways. This perspective resonates with social science expertise on the significant health impacts of unequal living conditions and the profound influence of social life on bodies in general. Environmental epigenetics could thus provide an important opportunity for moving beyond long-standing debates about nature versus nurture between the disciplines and think instead in 'biosocial' terms across the disciplines. Yet, beyond enthusiasm for such novel interdisciplinary opportunities, it is crucial to also reflect on the scientific, social and political challenges that a biosocial model of body, health and illness might entail. In this paper, we contribute historical and social science perspectives on the political opportunities and challenges afforded by a biosocial conception of the body. We will specifically focus on what it means if biosocial plasticity is not only perceived to characterize the life of individuals but also as possibly giving rise to semi-stable traits that can be passed on to future generations. That is, we will consider the historical, social and political valences of the scientific proposition of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. The key question that animates this article is if and how the notion of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance creates new forms of responsibilities both in science and in society. We propose that, ultimately, interdisciplinary conversation and collaboration is essential for responsible approaches to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in science and society.

Epigenetics Changes Nothing: What a New Scientific Field Does and Does Not Mean for Ethics and Social Justice

Recently, ethicists have posited that consideration of epigenetic mechanisms presents novel challenges to concepts of justice and equality of opportunity, such as elevating the importance of environments in bioethics and providing a counterpoint to gross genetic determinism. We argue that new findings in epigenetic sciences, including those regarding intergenerational health effects, do not necessitate reconceptualization of theories of justice or the environment. To the contrary, such claims reflect a flawed understanding of epigenetics and its relation to genetics that may unintentionally undermine appeals to social justice. We provide a brief summary of epigenetic sciences, focusing on phenomena central to the current ethical discourse. We identify three fallacious modes of reasoning arising from the emergent literature on the ethical and policy implications of epigenetics, including mischaracterization, undue extrapolation, and exceptionalism. We end by discussing how these issues may work against mobilizing health equity policies and present a more modest claim regarding the value of new epigenetic knowledge to health justice by setting this discourse within the context of known themes in biomedical ethics and health policy.

Health, wealth and behavioural change: an exploration of role responsibilities in the wake of epigenetics

The field of epigenetics is leading to new conceptualizations of the role of environmental factors in health and genetic disease. Although more evidence is required, epigenetic mechanisms are being implicated in the link between low socioeconomic status and poor health status. Epigenetic phenomena work in a number of ways: they can be established early in development, transmitted from previous generations and/or responsive to environmental factors. Knowledge about these types of epigenetic traits might therefore allow us to move away from a genetic deterministic perspective, and provide individuals with the opportunity to change their health status. Although this could be equated with patient empowerment, it could also lead to stigmatization and discrimination where individuals are deemed responsible for their health, even if they are not in social situations where they are able to enact change that would alter their health status. In this paper, we will explore the responsibilities of different actors in the healthcare sphere in relation to epigenetics across four different contexts: (1) genetic research, (2) clinical practice, (3) prenatal care and (4) the workplace. Within this exploration of role responsibilities, we will also discuss the potential constraints that might prevent the patient, mother-to-be, research participant or employee, from enacting any necessary steps in order to increase their health status in response to epigenetic information.

Transgenerational epigenetics and environmental justice

Human transmission to offspring and future generations of acquired epigenetic modifications has not been definitively established, although there are several environmental exposures with suggestive evidence. This article uses three examples of hazardous substances with greater exposures in vulnerable populations: pesticides, lead, and diesel exhaust. It then considers whether, if there were scientific evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, there would be greater attention given to concerns about environmental justice in environmental laws, regulations, and policies at all levels of government. To provide a broader perspective on environmental justice the article discusses two of the most commonly cited approaches to environmental justice. John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness, a form of egalitarianism, is frequently invoked for the principle that differential treatment of individuals is justified only if actions are designed to benefit those with the greatest need. Another theory, the capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focuses on whether essential capabilities of society, such as life and health, are made available to all individuals. In applying principles of environmental justice the article considers whether there is a heightened societal obligation to protect the most vulnerable individuals from hazardous exposures that could adversely affect their offspring through epigenetic mechanisms. It concludes that unless there were compelling evidence of transgenerational epigenetic harms, it is unlikely that there would be a significant impetus to adopt new policies to prevent epigenetic harms by invoking principles of environmental justice.