Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild

Abstract

Genetic editing technologies have long been used to modify domesticated nonhuman animals and plants. Recently, attention and funding have also been directed toward projects for modifying nonhuman organisms in the shared environment—that is, in the “wild.” Interest in gene editing nonhuman organisms for wild release is motivated by a variety of goals, and such releases hold the possibility of significant, potentially transformative benefit. The technologies also pose risks and are often surrounded by a high uncertainty. Given the stakes, scientists and advisory bodies have called for public engagement in the science, ethics, and governance of gene editing research in nonhuman organisms. Most calls for public engagement lack details about how to design a broad public deliberation, including questions about participation, how to structure the conversations, how to report on the content, and how to link the deliberations to policy. We summarize the key design elements that can improve broad public deliberations about gene editing in the wild.

Lockdowns, Bioethics, and the Public: Policy‐Making in a Liberal Democracy

“…Discussing the case of gene editing, Michael Gusmano and colleagues argue that the informed views of the public (rather than the actual views of the public) should be sought because four conditions are met: the issue is of high moral stakes; the issue is not receiving significant attention in popular media or public debates; the issue involves a high degree of uncertainty, including about the values at stake; and the policy debate suffers from distortion. 24 Lockdowns clearly meet three of these four conditions, lacking only the second. It thus seems reasonable to me to think that the relevant public values here are the values the public would hold after deliberation, and therefore that some technique such as deliberative polling provides the right path forward.…”

“…20 As was noted in a recent Hastings Center special report, it is not uncommon for bioethicists to issue calls for public engagement that fail to describe in detail what form that engagement should take and that fail to explain how the public's views should ultimately influence decisionmaking. 21 Such details seem to be especially important in cases-like the case of lockdown-that raise many issues on which the public is likely to disagree. Accordingly, I will use the remainder of this section to identify three important questions that bioethicists will need to address in order to provide guidance to policy-makers concerning lockdowns.…”

“…But I set them aside here since they have recently been discussed in this journal. 26 • How should policy-makers handle cases where the public (after informed deliberation) hold fundamentally incompatible views? Suppose, for example, that 60 percent of the public hold values that would support continuing a strict lockdown, while 40 percent hold values that would support significantly relaxing restrictions.…”

“…This still leaves many questions unanswered, including precisely what form such deliberation should take and who should be included. But I set them aside here since they have recently been discussed in this journal 26 …”

Recalibrating Bioethics for the Reality of Interdependence: The Challenge of Collective‐Impact Problems

“…What should be done when the views of various publics are in conflict or when facts are contested-either appropriately or due to manipulation and purposeful campaigns to sow distrust? The Hastings Center has addressed these and related questions in several reports, including one on how best to align cost-benefit analysis with public values, 10 another on public deliberation in the context of gene editing in the wild, 11 and a third on ways to strengthen the capacity for civic engagement and a sense of common purpose in the United States' highly polarized and contentious society. 12 However, as a field, we must expand.…”