What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond

Abstract

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.

Public and Stakeholder Engagement in Developing Human Heritable Genome Editing Policies: What Does it Mean and What Should it Mean?

“…PSE activities should be methodologically sound, utilizing evidence-based methods aligned to achieve specific PSE goals (Scheufele et al, 2021). However, none of the reports note why particular methods were adopted.…”

“…Sources: Adashi et al, 2020;Barbosa et al, 2020;Burgess, 2014;Cormick, 2009;Fisher, 2011;Guston, 2014;Haywood and Besley, 2014;Heidari et al, 2016;Irwin, 2014;Jones, 2014;Jasanoff, 2003;Jasanoff, 2004;Kyle and Dodds, 2009;Kaner et al, 2014;Kouper, 2010;Lezaun and Soneryd, 2007;Longstaff and Secko, 2016;NASEM, 2017 (p 110, 182) Pham, 2016;Posner et al, 2016;Reed et al, 2018;Scheufele et al, 2021;Selin et al, 2017;Smith et al, 2021;Stilgoe et al, 2014;Stix, 2021;Stirling, 2008;Stirling, 2012;Stix, 2021;Sturgis, 2014;van Est, 2011;Varner, 2014;Warnock, 1984;Weller et al, 2021;Wilsdon and Willis, 2014. to guide the research (Baltimore et al, 2015a;Landphier et al, 2015;Lander et al, 2019).…”

“…The ideal of comprehensiveness applies both at a broad level (when and how decision-makers call for PSE) as well as the scope of PSE efforts committees are tasked with (Fisher, 2011;Kyle and Dodds, 2009;Scheufele et al, 2021;Smith et al, 2021;Stix, 2021;van Est, 2011). One measure of the former is how far along research has progressed before PSE begins.…”

“…PSE should seek a broad range of sometimes divergent views and opinions on subjects, including people with different backgrounds, expertise or experiences (Adashi et al, 2020;Barbosa et al, 2020;Cormick, 2009;Fisher, 2011;Heidari et al, 2016;Kyle and Dodds, 2009;Neuhaus, 2018;Scheufele et al, 2021;Smith et al, 2021;Stirling, 2012;Stix, 2021;Sturgis, 2014). Each committee attempted to be inclusive.…”

“…To be accountable, PSE efforts should include plans for assessment and be assessed both to ensure they are meeting their goals and to measure their impact on recommendations or guidelines issued (Cormick, 2009;Stilgoe et al, 2014;Heidari et al, 2016;Longstaff and Secko, 2016;Selin et al, 2017;Neuhaus, 2018;Scheufele et al, 2021;Stix, 2021). This includes evaluating whether a committee was successful in meeting the other four ideals (comprehensive, transparent, inclusive, and methodologically sound): did they addressed the range of relevant questions and issues, operated and reported their work transparently, reached a broad range of stakeholders and members of the public, and adopted methods that were suited to particular goals?…”