Abstract

The text discusses the challenges of regulating clinical germline editing, balancing its potential benefits and risks. It critiques the feasibility of full public participation in gene editing governance while advocating for pragmatic, alternative approaches. [1] Promise and Perils of Germline Editing: It could prevent genetic diseases but also raises ethical, social, and psychological concerns, including inequality, genetic enhancement pressures, and irreversible genetic modifications. [2] Public Deliberation and Regulation: Given the broad implications, public participation in regulatory decisions is crucial. However, deliberative democracy, despite its promise, has not been tested in biotechnology regulation and faces significant hurdles. [3] Challenges to Effective Public Engagement: Lack of public awareness and interest in biotechnology ethics; The need for scientific literacy to meaningfully engage; Deep ethical, cultural, and religious divides; Distrust in elites and vested interests shaping deliberations; High resource demands for public engagement; The global nature of biotechnology complicating regulation. [4] Failures of Public Engagement: Studies show that efforts to engage the public have been largely ineffective, often reflecting the views of vocal groups rather than producing equitable or just policies. [5] Alternative Approaches: Given these challenges, the text suggests: Improving public education and media literacy; Using digital tools for participation; Exploring hybrid models combining expert deliberation with democratic engagement; Accepting less-than-consensual decision-making models, such as modified majority rule.