Global citizen deliberation on genome editing

Dryzek, John S.; Nicol, Dianne; Niemeyer, Simon; Pemberton, Sonya; Curato, Nicole; Bächtiger, André; Batterham, Philip J.; Bedsted, Bjørn; Burall, Simon; Burgess, Michael; Burgio, Gaétan; Castelfranchi, Yurij; Chneiweiss, Hervé; Church, George M.; Crossley, Merlin; Vries, Jantina de; Farooque, Mahmud; Hammond, Marit; He, Baogang; Mendonça, Ricardo Fabrino; Merchant, Jennifer; Middleton, Anna; Rasko, John E.J.; Hoyweghen, Ine Van; Vergne, Antoine

doi:10.1126/science.abb5931

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Richer understanding of these underlying dynamics and frameworks will be valuable in heeding calls for broad and inclusive societal discussions and efforts toward consensus. [63][64][65][66]…”

Section: Human Genome Editing: Global Policy Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions and debates about the governance of human germline and heritable genome editing should be informed by a clear and accurate understanding of the global policy landscape. This policy survey of 106 countries yields significant new data. A large majority of countries (96 out of 106) surveyed have policy documentslegislation, regulations, guidelines, codes, and international treaties-relevant to the use of genome editing to modify early-stage human embryos, gametes, or their precursor cells. Most of these 96 countries do not have policies that specifically address the use of genetically modified in vitro embryos in laboratory research (germline genome editing); of those that do, 23 prohibit this research and 11 explicitly permit it. Seventy-five of the 96 countries prohibit the use of genetically modified in vitro embryos to initiate a pregnancy (heritable genome editing). Five of these 75 countries provide exceptions to their prohibitions. No country explicitly permits heritable human genome editing. These data contrast markedly with previously reported findings.

show abstract

Section: Human Genome Editing: Global Policy Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citizen assemblies have been employed to good effect at the national scale. It is now timely to institute them globally (see Dryzek et al [2020] on this, taking the example of genome editing technologies). 18.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change

Castree

Bellamy

Osaka³

2020

The Anthropocene Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the late 1970s, over 140 global environmental assessments (GEAs) have been completed. But are they any longer fit for purpose? Some believe not. Compelling arguments have been advanced for a new assessment paradigm, one more focussed on problem-solving than problem-identification. If translated into new assessment practices, this envisaged paradigm could prevail for the next several decades, just as the current one has since the late 1970s. In this paper, it is contended that the arguments for GEAs 2.0 are, in fact, insufficiently bold. Solutions-orientated assessments, often associated with a ‘policy turn’ by their advocates, are undoubtedly necessary. But without a ‘politics turn’ they will be profoundly insufficient: policy options would be detached from the diverse socio-economic explanations and ‘deep hermeneutics’ of value that ultimately give them meaning, especially given the very high stakes now attached to managing human impacts on a fast-changing planet. Here we make the case for GEAs 3.0, where two paradigmatic steps forward are taken at once rather than just one. The second step involves the introduction of political reasoning and structured normative debate about existential alternatives, a pre-requisite to strategic decision-making and its operational expression. Possible objections to this second step are addressed and rebutted. Even so, the case for politically-overt GEAs faces formidable difficulties of implementation. However, we consider these challenges less a sign of our undue idealism and more an indication of the urgent need to mitigate, if not overcome them. In a world of ‘wicked problems’ we need ‘wicked assessments’ adequate to them, preparatory to so-called ‘clumsy solutions’. This paper is intended to inspire more far-reaching debate about the future of GEAs and, by implication, about the roles social science and the humanities might usefully play in addressing global environmental change.

show abstract

“…We also note the emergence and prevalence of global citizen deliberation-a deliberative assembly composed predominantly of lay citizens-as an important framework that can inform global climate governance and other problems of the world [22,23]. In fact, there are numerous other frameworks that fall outside our scope.…”

Section: Evolving Climate Change Governance Architecture: a Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidisciplinary Composition of Climate Change Commissions: Transnational Trends and Expert Perspectives

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change governance has metamorphosed from multilateral pacts such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement to the enactment of country-specific dedicated legislation for mitigation and adaptation. A common feature of this phenomenon is the establishment of an expert committee on climate change, or simply, a climate change commission (CCC). For effective climate change governance, a multidisciplinary CCC will play a key role. The objective of this study is to inquire into the multidisciplinary requirements of a CCC and how multidisciplinarity can influence the efficacy of climate governance measures. Accordingly, it inquires into transnational circumstances on the disciplinary/multidisciplinary composition of CCCs and samples the perspectives of over 120 climate policy experts—through a structured survey—to draw insights into how countries could establish a suitable multidisciplinary CCC in legislative and policy processes. Key results from transnational circumstances and expert perspectives reveal the propriety of establishing CCCs to drive robust mitigation and adaptation policies. As the study shows, multiple countries have already incorporated diverse domains and backgrounds of expertise in the composition of their CCCs. Furthermore, our experts’ survey reveals overwhelming support among respondents (98%) for CCCs, and all those who support these commissions believe they should be, to some degree, independent and multidisciplinary. Experts’ perspectives reveal a spectrum of specific desirable multidisciplinary categories—legal, physical science, biosciences, energy and engineering, economics, planning, social sciences, ethics, governance, health, and communication. We also highlight some caveats regarding multidisciplinarity and reflect on the existence of quasi-institutions across countries without dedicated CCCs.

show abstract

Global citizen deliberation on genome editing

Abstract: Global governance can be informed by a deliberative assembly composed of lay citizens

Cited by 49 publications

References 12 publications

Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape

Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape

The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change

Multidisciplinary Composition of Climate Change Commissions: Transnational Trends and Expert Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About