When Genetics Meets Religion: What Scientists and Religious Leaders Can Learn from Each Other

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> To date scientists and religious leaders have not yet engaged in sustained face-to-face conversation concerning precision public health-related genetic technologies. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To elucidate areas of commonality and divergence in scientists’ and religious leaders’ views of precision genetic technologies, and extract lessons conveyed by religious leaders to scientists, and scientists to religious leaders through participatory dialogue. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Six 1.5-h dialogue sessions were held between 6 religious leaders, 8 University of Michigan scientists, and 3 additional public health/genetic counseling graduate students between October 2016 and September 2017, followed by an open conference at the Ann Arbor Public Library (<i>n</i> = 46). Statements were organized into thematically arranged duets comparing views of scientists and religious leaders. Duets were further ordered into interpretive levels. Comparative techniques were used to assure category agreement and face validity. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The analysis yielded 20 duets and 3 interpretive levels (expositional; implications and consequences; and integrative, bridging concepts). Scientists emphasized the value of epigenetic testing for health promotion, and cost saving for some forms of early genetic testing for adult-onset conditions. Religious leaders stressed care for an individual’s willingness to change over technical fixes for behavioral conditions and, together with public participants, the importance of allocating money for societal needs. Both expressed caution on the use of nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA replacement and secondary uses of genetic data. Lay conference participants pointed towards a middle ground on the release of genetically edited mosquitoes for disease eradication. <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> Scientists stressed the value of professional guidance; religious leaders listened to family needs. Dialogues met four literature-based criteria for stakeholder involvement in deliberative processes. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> While scientists and religious leaders differ in their points of emphasis and faith orientations (professional competency versus drawing on compassion), they can successfully collaborate in reaching mutual understanding and specific areas of agreement on precision genetic technologies relating to public health.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan

“…However, there is potential for mutual understanding and collaboration. Scientists and religious leaders have been suggested to successfully work together to reach a mutual understanding and specific agreements on genetic technologies (Modell et al 2019 ). The position of the religious sector in national committees needs further consideration, noting the trends in the social debate in each country.…”

International Biospecimen Sourcing Platform: A Key Player in Advancing Health Research and Drug Discovery

“…Ensuring that the goals of the biobanking initiative align with religious principles, particularly regarding the ethical use of biospecimen for the greater good and the equitable distribution of benefits, is crucial. Consultation with religious leaders to provide ethical oversight, along with the implementation of education and outreach programs that include religious sensitivity training for those involved in biospecimen collection, data management, and community engagement, can be instrumental in addressing these challenges 64,65 .…”

Public Service Engagement: Resting Ground for Specialized Ability or Garden for Multidisciplinary Talent?

“…Conclusions materializing from these events revolved around implications and alternatives for families and the community, economic burdens, and avoiding disparities. Both the Detroit and Ann Arbor series led to conclusions about which genetic applications would be most acceptable to disparate members of society and recommendations that could inform health professional practice and policymaking (Modell et al, 2019;Modell, 2007). They also served to raise public awareness of the issues.…”