TY - JOUR
T1 - Editing Humanity?: An Interdisciplinary commentary on Genome Editing in Assisted Reproductive Technology (accepted with revisions)
AU - Nordberg, Ana
AU - Minssen, Timo
AU - Feeney, Oliver
AU - de Miguel Beriain, Iñigo
AU - Galvagni, Lucia
AU - Wartiovaara, Kirmo
N1 - Nordberg, Ana and Minssen, Timo and Feeney, Oliver and de Miguel Beriain, Iñigo and Galvagni, Lucia and Wartiovaara, Kirmo, Editing Humanity?: An Interdisciplinary Commentary on Genome Editing in Assisted Reproductive Technology (July 15, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3285731
PY - 2019/5
Y1 - 2019/5
N2 - Potential applications of genome editing technology in assisted reproductive technology (ART) raise a vast array of strong opinions, emotional reactions and divergent perceptions. This is often followed by calls for new specific legislation introducing complete bans or restrictive regulations. While acknowledging the need for caution and respecting such reactions, we observe nevertheless that many calls for radical and exceptionalistic approaches are based on either (a) a misunderstanding of the science, or (b) on misconceptions about the content and flexibility of the existing legal frameworks. In this paper, we describe how many applications of gene editing could actually be regulated under existing legal frameworks and by reference to equivalent technologies. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective combining medical, legal and ethical expertise, we assess the emerging regulatory responses at the national, European and international levels. In doing so we distinguish between areas of evidence-based reasoning and more speculative responses grounded in natural and social scientific misunderstandings. We argue that scientific communication should claim a more prominent role to counter the danger of widespread misinformation. A high level of transparency and accuracy should guide scientific communication, while simultaneously global-scale responsibility and governance should be fostered by (and for) every stakeholder. To achieve this goal, we stress that interdisciplinary thinking and multi-level stakeholder dialogue is crucial and should increasingly form part of future legislative initiatives and other types of legal development.
AB - Potential applications of genome editing technology in assisted reproductive technology (ART) raise a vast array of strong opinions, emotional reactions and divergent perceptions. This is often followed by calls for new specific legislation introducing complete bans or restrictive regulations. While acknowledging the need for caution and respecting such reactions, we observe nevertheless that many calls for radical and exceptionalistic approaches are based on either (a) a misunderstanding of the science, or (b) on misconceptions about the content and flexibility of the existing legal frameworks. In this paper, we describe how many applications of gene editing could actually be regulated under existing legal frameworks and by reference to equivalent technologies. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective combining medical, legal and ethical expertise, we assess the emerging regulatory responses at the national, European and international levels. In doing so we distinguish between areas of evidence-based reasoning and more speculative responses grounded in natural and social scientific misunderstandings. We argue that scientific communication should claim a more prominent role to counter the danger of widespread misinformation. A high level of transparency and accuracy should guide scientific communication, while simultaneously global-scale responsibility and governance should be fostered by (and for) every stakeholder. To achieve this goal, we stress that interdisciplinary thinking and multi-level stakeholder dialogue is crucial and should increasingly form part of future legislative initiatives and other types of legal development.
UR - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3285731
M3 - Journal article
SN - 0269-9702
JO - Bioethics
JF - Bioethics
ER -