- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research
John M. Conley, R. Jean Cadigan, Arlene M. Davis, Eric T. Juengst, Kriste Kuczynski, Rami Major, Hayley Stancil, Julio Villa-Palomino, Margaret Waltz & Gail E. Henderson
American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):9-16 (2023)
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
In a recent Target Article Naomi Scheinerman (2023a) has offered an important and compelling call to institutionalize popular participation for heritable genome engineering through the inclusion of... |
|
|
Despite what many critics see as an inability to deliver much in the way of therapeutic value (Hunter and Drazen 2019), genetics remains a bottomless source of fascination, trepidation, and reflect... |
|
|
Given some of the various possible impacts of clinical germline editing, we can expect robust disagreement about how best to regulate it. One can point to examples of the promise of editing: “rough... |
|
|
In their target article, Conley et al. (2023) appropriately highlight the ongoing conceptual and practical opacity of public engagement (PE) in the translation of human gene editing (HGE) (Conley e... |
|
|
From its inception, genomics has been a speculative endeavor, fixated on a far-off horizon that would deliver on the promise of targeted diagnostics and individualized therapeutics (Fortun 2008). M... |
|
|
Conley et al. (2023) analyze the attempts at public engagement (PE) by five governance groups. These projects were conducted by organizations that endorse both the goals and values of PE. The autho... |
|
|
Conley and colleagues (2023) conduct a fascinating analysis of how influential organizations in the global governance of human genome editing debate conceptualize and perform public engagement. Whi... |
|
|
In this commentary for Conley et al. (2023), we seek to bridge the gap that, unfortunately, still often exists between debates in Science & Technology Studies (STS) and Bioethics. We believe that t... |
|
|
ELSI efforts long have been troubled by critiques that they privilege scientific frameworks and grant scientists the power to set ethical agendas. As the first director of the Human Genome Project’... |
|
|
Public deliberation has increasingly become the gold standard for citizens’ participation in the governance of science and technology, with a growing body of research suggesting that deliberative p... |
|
|
Scheinerman (2023) proposes a Citizen’s Jury on human germline genome editing (HGGE) to promote more inclusive public engagement, agenda setting and governance. She argues these juries should work... |
|
|
In “The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research,” Conley et al. raise (2023) important critiques of several public engagement practices in the re... |
|
|
The authors of the ELSIcon special issue have advanced the conversation on ethics and genetics. Nevertheless, we have some concerns. Here, we respond specifically to Conley et al. (2023). We choose... |
|
|
Conley and colleagues (2023) explore how calls for broad public engagement (PE) in the case of heritable human genome editing are being put into action, reviewing the activities of five different i... |
|
|
The timing of this special issue of AJOB probing whether public engagement (PE)1 might help achieve equity in genomics is no coincidence. While many issues discussed by the authors are not entirely... |
|
|
From their interpretation of the Australian Citizens’ Jury on genome editing, Scheinerman (2023) concludes that inclusive and diverse deliberative processes of public engagement have salient benefi... |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7674574dd6-qscpl uwo