Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats genome editing has already reinvented the direction of genetic and stem cell research. For more complex diseases it allows scientists to simultaneously create multiple genetic changes to a single cell. Technologies for correcting multiple mutations in an in vivo system are already in development. On the surface, the advent and use of gene editing technologies is a powerful tool to reduce human suffering by eradicating complex disease that has a genetic etiology. Gene drives are (...) CRISPR mediated alterations to genes that allow them to be passed on to subsequent populations at rates that approach one hundred per cent transmission. Therefore, from an anticipatory biomedical ethics perspective, it is possible to conceive gene drive being used with CRISPR to permanently ameliorate aberrant genes from wild-type populations containing mutations. However, there are also a number of possible side effects that could develop as the result of combining gene editing and gene drive technologies in an effort to eradicate complex diseases. In this paper, we critically analyse the hypothesis that the combination of CRISPR and gene drive will have a deleterious effect on human populations from an ethical perspective by developing an anticipatory ethical analysis of the implications for the use of CRISPR together with gene drive in humans. (shrink)

Lorsque les sciences humaines et sociales analysent les nanotechnologies, que révèlent-elles de ces disciplines? Ici, je propose six éléments de réponse. Tout d’abord, nous pouvons nous demander si notre travail est issu de travaux antérieurs sur d’autres sujets scientifiques, tels que les organismes génétiquement modifiés ou le programme ELSI du projet du génome humain. Deuxièmement, comment jugeons-nous les promesses extravagantes associées à les nanotechnologies? Troisièmement, que concluons-nous sur les origines des nanotechnologies? Après cela, le problème de la définition des nanotechnologies. (...) Ensuite, la question de savoir s’il aurait pu ou dû exister un consensus sur l’éthique en nanotechnologie. Et enfin, la responsabilité de communiquer nos découvertes et nos points de vue aux communautés scientifiques et d’ingénieurs qui créent les nanotechnologies. (shrink)

In light of the potential long-term societal and economic benefits of novel nano-enabled products, there is an evident need for research and development to focus on closing the gap in nano-materials safety. Concurrent reflection on the impact of decision-making tools, which may lack the capability to assist sophisticated judgements around the risks and benefits of the introduction of novel products, is essential. This paper addresses the potential for extant decision support tools to default to a precautionary principle position in the (...) face of uncertainty. A more utilitarian-based approach could be facilitated by adding simple methods to formulate realistic hypotheses, which would assist non-specialists to make more nuanced decisions in terms of managing the risks of introducing new NMs. A decision support analytical framework is applied to identify the potential risks and benefits of novel nano-enabled products such as textiles with in-built enhanced antimicrobial activity for the prevention of nosocomial infections produced by spray or sonochemical coating possesses. While the results demonstrate valuable societal and environmental benefits compared to conventional products, due to uncertainty regarding the possible hazard to humans, sizable risks were identified in some cases due to the precautionary principle. (shrink)

Current nanotechnology regulation is focussed on risks. On the other hand, technical guidelines and other soft law tools are increasingly replacing hard law. This risk reduction approach does not seem to be fully aligned with open principles like sustainable nanotechnology. Indeed, risk optimization tends to be rather a continuous process than a way to settle ultimate lists of risks. There is therefore a need for a more dynamic view: Life cycle assessment contributes to add momentum and context to the models. (...) However, a complementary perspective is here suggested, based on information technologies: nanotechnology platforms. Platforms for nanotechnology governance are supposed to complement and enhance the nano-regulation, adding risk assessment and management. These platforms are mainly offering information, coordination, and context or situational awareness. More recently, some informal platforms appear to play a, certainly limited but still clear, co-regulatory role. Can these informal platforms play a relevant role in nanotechnology governance? In the context of the EU Better Regulation strategy, why not envision some of these informal platforms as future co-regulation tools? The main goal of this paper is to start a discussion on the requirements these informal co-regulatory platforms should fulfill before their hypothetical inclusion in a future better regulation toolbox. (shrink)