Barriers to inclusive deliberation and democratic governance of genetic technologies at the science-policy interface

Abstract

Advances in 21st century genetic technologies offer new directions for addressing public health and environmental challenges, yet raise important social and ethical questions. Though the need for inclusive deliberation is widely recognized, institutionalized risk definitions, regulation standards, and imaginations of publics pose obstacles to democratic participation and engagement. This paper traces how the problematic precedents set by the 1975 Asilomar Conference emerge in contemporary discussions on CRISPR, and draws from a recent controversy surrounding field trial releases of genetically modified mosquitoes to explicate the ways in which these precedents undermine efforts to engage publics in decisions at the science-policy interface.

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

“…The second track entails the realm of political decision-making in which participation contributes to demarcation and definition of the policy problem and possible solutions: the political dimension of stakeholder participation (Taylor & Dewsbury 2019 ; Poort 2013 ; Stirling 2012 ). Participants of the latter track proceed with the outcomes of the first track, by acknowledging the conclusions, including (minority) diverging viewpoints and underlying arguments.…”

Oxitec and MosquitoMate in the United States: lessons for the future of gene drive mosquito control

“…In 2009, after a local outbreak of dengue raised concerns about the district’s ability to control Aedes mosquitoes, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) approached Oxitec about hosting a trial of the OX513A mosquitoes [ 38 ]. In planning the trial, the FKMCD drew upon experience with other trials of new vector control strategies and worked to educate and prepare the residents of the proposed site, beginning with public notifications and press releases and followed by educational public meetings [ 39 , 40 ]. However, FKMCD would not initiate the trial without federal regulatory review.…”

“…Taylor and Dewsbury’s analysis of comments highlights how town hall participants expressed their expectations for more robust public engagement from Oxitec and FKMCD beyond media campaigns and public informational events. Participants also voiced a desire for more independent and stringent risk assessment from the FDA [ 40 ].…”

Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy

“…The genetically engineered male OX513A mosquito was designed to decrease the size of the Aedes aegypti population. 19 Oxitec requested the NAD pursuant to 2009 FDA guidance in which the agency asserted regulatory authority over genetically engineered animals and insects. 20 In March 2016-five years after Oxitec submitted its request to the FDA to conduct the investigational field trials-the agency released a preliminary finding that the trials would have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment in the United States, and it opened a thirty-day public comment period to give any interested parties the opportunity to respond to its preliminary decision.…”