Two years ago, the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine released a report drafted by an international committee regarding the use of gene editing in humans. Once a tedious and expensive process, gene editing has now become more accessible and cheaper using the new CRISPR technology, making the issue of its use more urgent and pressing. The committee cites general support for somatic nonheritable gene editing to correct for a serious disease already present in a (...) human being, but more controversial is germline gene editing for heritable conditions. Performing gene editing that affects an individual's descendants is at present tightly controlled in the US, but around the... (shrink)

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements (...) of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both “public” and “engagement.”. (shrink)