scholarly journals Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439
Author(s):  
Eli Y. Adashi ◽  
Michael M. Burgess ◽  
Simon Burall ◽  
I. Glenn Cohen ◽  
Leonard M. Fleck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
The Public

Regulating genome editing technologies: a comparison of expert recommendations in the U.K. and in the U.S.A.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-705
Author(s):  
Sofia Iacomussi
Keyword(s):  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
General Public ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Bioethical Debate ◽  
Expert Recommendations

The present paper aims to inform the bioethical debate on the regulation of human genome editing technologies with a specific focus on the role of scientific experts and their interactions with the general public in the formulation of policy. It reviews and compares two of the major contributions to this debate in the U.K. and in the U.S.A., comparing expert approaches towards regulation on genome editing technologies. The results of this analysis offer important lessons that should be appreciated in building an international regulatory framework. On the basis of these results, I conclude that the experts should embrace a socially responsible approach and encourage active public engagement.

scholarly journals Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverley A. Townsend
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Novel Technologies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Novel Technology ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Social Difficulties ◽  
Genomic Editing

Abstract Background Human genome editing technologies offer much potential benefit. However, central to any conversation relating to the application of such technologies are certain ethical, legal, and social difficulties around their application. The recent misuse, or inappropriate use, by certain Chinese actors of the application of genome editing technologies has been, of late, well noted and described. Consequently, caution is expressed by various policy experts, scientists, bioethicists, and members of the public with regard to the appropriate use of human germline genome editing and its possible future effect on future generations. Main text As concerns about the applications of heritable genome editing have grown, so too have the questions around what is to be done to curtail ‘rogue actors’. This paper explores various ways in which to regulate genomic editing that are socially beneficial, while being cognisant of legal and ethical principles and rights values. This is done by evolving regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions in an attempt to raise issues, address common principles, and set responsible standards for stewardship of the novel technology. Conclusions It is suggested that robust and concrete regulatory measures be introduced that are culturally and contextually sensitive, inclusive, appropriate, and trustworthy – and are based on public empowerment and human rights objectives. Doing so will ensure that we are perfectly positioned to harness and promote the benefits that novel technologies have to offer, while safeguarding public health and curtailing the ambitions of rogue actors. This it is acknowledged is no easy task, so, as a point of departure, this paper sets out a path forward by means of certain, practical recommendations – by constructing genome editing regulation in a manner that both fulfils the desire to better progress human health and that can withstand legal and ethical scrutiny. The following observations and recommendations are made: Firstly, that a solution of effective, legitimate governance should consist of a combination of national and supranational legislative regulation or ‘hard’ law, in combination with ‘soft’ ethics, firmly anchored in and underpinned by human rights values. Second, that efforts to support legal and ethical solutions should be rigorous, practical, and robust, contribute to a reaffirmation of human rights in a contextually sensitive manner, and be transnational in reach. Lastly, that greater harmonisation across jurisdictions and increased public engagement be sought. This it is proposed will address the question of how to implement a normative framework which in turn can prevent future rogue actors.

Flood alleviation in a heavily urbanized area – Kai Tak Nullah, Hong Kong

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan K. L. Chan ◽  
Colin K. C. Wong ◽  
Robin H. N. Lee ◽  
Mike W. H. Cho
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Hydraulic Modelling ◽  
The Public ◽  
Design Considerations ◽  
Urbanized Area ◽  
Development Area ◽  
The Government ◽  
Exercise Design

The existing Kai Tak Nullah flows from Po Kong Village Road along Choi Hung Road and Tung Tau Estate into Kai Tak Development Area before discharging into the Victoria Harbour. Historically its upstream has been subject to flooding under storm conditions and this has had serious repercussions for the adjacent urban areas. A study has been commissioned by the Drainage Services Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), China to investigate the flood mechanisms and to provide flood alleviation measures by improving the capacity of the Kai Tak Nullah. In addition to flood alleviation, there is a strong public aspiration to rehabilitate the Kai Tak Nullah by a comparatively natural river design. Since the Kai Tak Nullah is located within a heavily urbanized area, traffic and environmental impacts are also highly concerned. The final flood alleviation scheme has thus had to strike a balance among the aforesaid factors with assistance from the hydraulic modelling utilizing InfoWorks Collection Systems (CS) software. This paper presents the public engagement exercise, design considerations, methodologies, and recommendations regarding the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Kai Tak Nullah.

scholarly journals Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gesa Busch ◽  
Erin Ryan ◽  
Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk ◽  
Daniel M. Weary
Keyword(s):  
Disease Resistance ◽  
Product Quality ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Perceived Risks ◽  
Public Response ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Us

AbstractPublic opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species (human, plant, animal), and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies.

scholarly journals Scientific literacy, public engagement and responsibility in science

2021 ◽  
pp. 209660832110096
Author(s):  
Daya Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Digital Revolution ◽  
The Past ◽  
Responsibility Of Scientists

This work addresses the issue of scientific literacy and its connection to the responsibility of scientists in relation to public engagement. The points of departure are, first, the notion of science as a global public good, and, second, developments in the past few decades driven largely by the digital revolution. The latter lend a particular urgency to initiatives aimed at promoting scientific literacy. Arguments are presented for reassessing approaches to public communication. The particular example of genome editing is provided as a vehicle for highlighting the challenges in engagement involving the scientific community, policymakers and broader society.

scholarly journals Programming Native CRISPR Arrays for the Generation of Targeted Immunity

mBio ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander P. Hynes ◽  
Simon J. Labrie ◽  
Sylvain Moineau
Keyword(s):  
Immune System ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Dna Sequence ◽  
Adaptive Immune System ◽  
Natural Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adaptive Immune ◽  
Public Consciousness ◽  
Industrial Settings

ABSTRACT The adaptive immune system of prokaryotes, called CRISPR-Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated genes), results in specific cleavage of invading nucleic acid sequences recognized by the cell’s “memory” of past encounters. Here, we exploited the properties of native CRISPR-Cas systems to program the natural “memorization” process, efficiently generating immunity not only to a bacteriophage or plasmid but to any specifically chosen DNA sequence. IMPORTANCE CRISPR-Cas systems have entered the public consciousness as genome editing tools due to their readily programmable nature. In industrial settings, natural CRISPR-Cas immunity is already exploited to generate strains resistant to potentially disruptive viruses. However, the natural process by which bacteria acquire new target specificities (adaptation) is difficult to study and manipulate. The target against which immunity is conferred is selected stochastically. By biasing the immunization process, we offer a means to generate customized immunity, as well as provide a new tool to study adaptation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document