China's Belt and Road Initiative from a global health perspective.

Ruwei Hu,Ruqing Liu,Nan Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30250-4

2017-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review

Wendy P. Geuverink,Diewertje Houtman,Isabel R. A. Retel Helmrich,Joosje D. Kist,Lidewij Henneman,Martina C. Cornel,Sam R. Riedijk,'The DNA dialogues' Consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01740-6

2024-11-29

European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract:Following the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas technology in 2012, there has been a growing global call for public engagement regarding the potential use of human germline gene editing (HGGE). In this systematic scoping review, we aim to evaluate public engagement studies considering the following questions based on three points of attention: 1) Inclusion of underrepresented groups: who have been engaged? 2) Gathering values: what output has been reported? 3) Reaching societal impact: what objectives of public engagement have been reported? A systematic literature search from 2012 to 2023 identified 3464 articles reporting on public engagement studies regarding HGGE retrieved from 12 databases. After screening, 52 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 36 articles that cover 31 public engagement studies. We conclude that co-created efforts are needed to engage underrepresented groups as well as to yield values rather than acceptance levels, and to concretise how engagement might result in societal impact.

genetics & heredity,biochemistry & molecular biology
Will South Africa become first country to accept controversial form of human genome editing?

Sarah Wild

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03643-4

IF: 64.8

2024-11-09

Nature

Abstract:Scientists raise the alarm following updated research ethics guidelines on heritable human genome editing. Scientists raise the alarm following updated research ethics guidelines on heritable human genome editing.

multidisciplinary sciences
Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals

R. Jean Cadigan,Margaret Waltz,John M. Conley,Rami M. Major,Elizabeth K. Branch,Eric T. Juengst,Michael A. Flatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2024.2404061

2024-09-22

New Genetics and Society

Abstract:Heritable human genome editing has garnered significant attention in scholarly and lay media, yet questions remain about whether, when, and how heritable genome editing ought to proceed. Drawing on interviews with scientists who use genome editing in their research and professionals engaged in human genome editing governance efforts, we examine their views on the permissibility of heritable genome editing and the governance strategies they see as necessary and realistic. For both issues, we found divergent views from respondents. We place the views of these scientists and governance professionals within the context of the larger bioethical discussion of heritable genome editing governance, along a continuum of hard to soft approaches. These respondents' views highlight the challenges of various hard forms of governance and the potential virtues of soft governance approaches.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,history & philosophy of science,biotechnology & applied microbiology,social issues
The Forgotten Man: Sir John Lubbock: His contributions to zoology and his liberal record as a member of Parliament ought to be remembered.

R. Pumphrey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.129.3356.1087

IF: 56.9

1959-04-24

Science

Abstract:
Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public

S Hendriks,N A A Giesbertz,A L Bredenoord,S Repping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoy008

2018-05-16

Abstract:Study question: What are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications? Summary answer: Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. What is known already: Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification. Study design size duration: In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate. Participants/materials setting methods: The questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed. Main results and the role of chance: The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios. Limitations reasons for caution: Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such. Wider implications of the findings: Further public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction. Study funding/competing interests: Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest. Trial registration number: Not applicable.
Heritable human genome editing: correction, selection and treatment

Rosamund Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae003

2024-03-21

Medical Law Review

Abstract:Abstract Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) to correct a nuclear gene sequence that would result in a serious genetic condition in a future child is presented as ‘treatment’ in various ethics and policy materials, and as morally preferable to the ‘selection’ practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which is subject to the disability critique. However, whether HHGE is ‘treatment’ for a future child, or another form of ‘selection’, or whether HHGE instead ‘treats’ prospective parents, are now central questions in the debate regarding its possible legalisation. This article argues that the idea of ‘treatment’ for a future child is largely a proxy for ‘seriousness of purpose’, intended to distinguish HHGE to avoid serious genetic conditions from less obviously justifiable uses; that HHGE is best understood, and morally justified, as a form of ‘treatment’ for prospective parents who strongly desire an unaffected genetically related child and who have no, or poor, options to achieve this; that HHGE would be morally permissible if consistent with that child’s welfare; that legalisation is supportable with reference to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that HHGE is morally distinguishable from PGT.

law,medicine, legal
Forcing a square into a circle: why South Africa's draft revised material transfer agreement is not fit for purpose

Paul Esselaar,Lee Swales,Devarasi Bellengère,Banele Mhlongo,Donrich Thaldar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1333672

IF: 5.6

2024-03-13

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:The South African National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) recently released a final draft revision of the standard material transfer agreement (MTA) that was promulgated into law in 2018. This new draft MTA raises pertinent questions about the NHREC's mandate, the way in which the draft MTA deals with data and with human biological material, and its avoidance of the concept of ownership. After South Africa's data protection legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), became operational in mid 2021, the legal landscape changed and it is doubtful that the NHREC has a residual mandate to govern personal information in health research. Furthermore, data is dealt with in a superficial, throw-away fashion in the draft MTA. The position with human biological material is not substantially better, as the draft MTA fails to recognise that human biological material can contain pathogens, which has important legal and ethical ramifications that are not sufficiently addressed. A central problem with the draft MTA is its use of the term 'steward', and avoidance of the legal concept of 'ownership'. This is not only misaligned with the South African legal framework, but also fails to consider the ethical case for recognising ownership. Finally, a call to embrace decolonial thinking in health research underscores the importance of recognising ownership in order to foster the growth of the local bio-economy. Key recommendations to reshape the draft MTA include: Making use of the eventual revised MTA optional, and allowing it to evolve with input from scientific and legal communities; regulating the transfer of associated data in a separate data transfer agreement that can be incorporated by reference in the MTA; enhancing guidance on liability and risk management in respect of human biological material that contains pathogens; and, finally, adopting a decolonial approach in health research governance, which requires recognising the ownership rights of South African research institutions.

pharmacology & pharmacy
The Belgian DNA Debate: An Online Deliberative Platform on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Genomics

Chloé Mayeur,Marlies Saelaert,Wannes Van Hoof

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000515356

2021-01-01

Public Health Genomics

Abstract:Introduction: Genomics is increasingly being implemented in the society. To fully realise this implementation, citizens should be consulted about their perspectives on genomics and its associated ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) to enable them to co-create with experts a society-supported framework in genomics. Methods: A Belgian online DNA debate was organised, where 1,127 citizens contributed to its deliberative platform. Results: Contributors expressed a dual attitude towards the societal use of genomic information throughout 5 main themes. Firstly, contributors considered DNA to have a significant but nondeterministic impact on identity. The second theme describes how genomic information may guide people’s behaviour but has unfavourable effects such as psychological distress. The third theme covers the tension between a genomics-based responsibility and the rejection of genetic discrimination. The fourth theme depicts how genomic information may be useful for the common good and society at large but how, nevertheless, it should be people’s free choice to use this information. In the fifth theme, contributors expressed both willingness to share their data and caution towards the harm and abuses this may engender. Finally, contributors formulated some recommendations for the responsible implementation of genomics. Discussion and Conclusion: The attitude of contributors towards the societal use of genomic information and its ELSI aligns with a soft precautionary approach, in which prudence and the weighing of different values should result in protective measures against potential risks and harms. Further societal implementation of genomics should include these values and concerns.

genetics & heredity,public, environmental & occupational health
Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study

Joseph Ochieng,Betty Kwagala,John Barugahare,Marlo Möller,Keymanthri Moodley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108885

2024-01-30

Abstract:Background: Genetic testing presents unique ethical challenges for research and clinical practice, particularly in low-resource settings. To address such challenges, context-specific understanding of ethical, legal and social issues is essential. Return of genetics and genomics research (GGR) results remains an unresolved yet topical issue particularly in African settings that lack appropriate regulation and guidelines. Despite the need to understand what is contextually acceptable, there is a paucity of empirical research and literature on what constitutes appropriate practice with respect to GGR.The study assessed patients' awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of GGR results in a hypothetical context. Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Respondents were patients attending the medical outpatient unit of Mulago National Hospital. Three deliberative focus group discussions involving 18 respondents were conducted. Data were analysed through thematic analysis. Results: Three main themes and several subthemes were identified. Most respondents were aware of genetic testing, supportive of GGR and receiving results. However, only a few had undergone genetic testing due to cost constraints. They articulated the need for adequate information and genetic counselling to inform decision-making. Privacy of results was important to respondents while others were willing to share results. Conclusion: There was general awareness and support for GGR and the return of results. Stigmatisation emerged as a barrier to disclosure of results for some. Global health inequity impacts access and affordability of genetic testing and counselling in Africa and should be addressed as a matter of social justice.
Enabling responsible public genomics

John M Conley,Adam K Doerr,Daniel B Vorhaus

Abstract:As scientific understandings of genetics advance, researchers require increasingly rich datasets that combine genomic data from large numbers of individuals with medical and other personal information. Linking individuals' genetic data and personal information precludes anonymity and produces medically significant information--a result not contemplated by the established legal and ethical conventions governing human genomic research. To pursue the next generation of human genomic research and commerce in a responsible fashion, scientists, lawyers, and regulators must address substantial new issues, including researchers' duties with respect to clinically significant data, the challenges to privacy presented by genomic data, the boundary between genomic research and commerce, and the practice of medicine. This Article presents a new model for understanding and addressing these new challenges--a "public genomics" premised on the idea that ethically, legally, and socially responsible genomics research requires openness, not privacy, as its organizing principle. Responsible public genomics combines the data contributed by informed and fully consenting information altruists and the research potential of rich datasets in a genomic commons that is freely and globally available. This Article examines the risks and benefits of this public genomics model in the context of an ambitious genetic research project currently under way--the Personal Genome Project. This Article also (i) demonstrates that large-scale genomic projects are desirable, (ii) evaluates the risks and challenges presented by public genomics research, and (iii) determines that the current legal and regulatory regimes restrict beneficial and responsible scientific inquiry while failing to adequately protect participants. The Article concludes by proposing a modified normative and legal framework that embraces and enables a future of responsible public genomics.
Participant recall and understandings of information on biobanking and future genomic research: experiences from a multi-disease community-based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa

Manono Luthuli,Nothando Ngwenya,Dumsani Gumede,Resign Gunda,Dickman Gareta,Olivier Koole,Mark J Siedner,Emily B Wong,Janet Seeley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00782-z

2022-04-18

Abstract:Background: Limited research has been conducted on explanations and understandings of biobanking for future genomic research in African contexts with low literacy and limited healthcare access. We report on the findings of a sub-study on participant understanding embedded in a multi-disease community health screening and biobank platform study known as 'Vukuzazi' in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with research participants who had been invited to take part in the Vukuzazi study, including both participants and non-participants, and research staff that worked on the study. The interviews were transcribed, and themes were identified from the interview transcripts, manually coded, and thematically analysed. Results: Thirty-nine individuals were interviewed. We found that the research team explained biobanking and future genomic research by describing how hereditary characteristics create similarities among individuals. However, recollection and understanding of this explanation seven months after participation was variable. The large volume of information about the Vukuzazi study objectives and procedures presented a challenge to participant recall. By the time of interviews, some participants recalled rudimentary facts about the genetic aspects of the study, but many expressed little to no interest in genetics and biobanking. Conclusion: Participant's understanding of information related to genetics and biobanking provided during the consent process is affected by the volume of information as well as participant's interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter being discussed. We recommend that future studies undertaking biobanking and genomic research treat explanations of this kind of research to participants as an on-going process of communication between researchers, participants and the community and that explanatory imagery and video graphic storytelling should be incorporated into theses explanations as these have previously been found to facilitate understanding among those with low literacy levels. Studies should also avoid having broader research objectives as this can divert participant's interest and therefore understanding of why their samples are being collected.
Treatment of metastatic tumors of the choroid with proton beam irradiation.

E. Tsina,A. Lane,D. Zacks,J. Munzenrider,J. Michael Collier,E. Gragoudas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2004.09.013

2005-02-01

Abstract:
The Case for Pre-Emptive Pharmacogenetic Screening in South Africa

Tracey Hurrell,Jerolen Naidoo,Collen Masimirembwa,Janine Scholefield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14010114

IF: 3.5083

2024-01-20

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Abstract:Lack of equitable representation of global genetic diversity has hampered the implementation of genomic medicine in under-represented populations, including those on the African continent. Data from the multi-national Pre-emptive Pharmacogenomic Testing for Preventing Adverse Drug Reactions (PREPARE) study suggest that genotype guidance for prescriptions reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by 30%. In this study, hospital dispensary trends from a tertiary South African (SA) hospital (Steve Biko Academic Hospital; SBAH) were compared with the drugs monitored in the PREPARE study. Dispensary data on 29 drugs from the PREPARE study accounted for ~10% of total prescriptions and ~9% of the total expenditure at SBAH. VigiLyze data from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority were interrogated for local ADRs related to these drugs; 27 were listed as being suspected, concomitant, or interacting in ADR reports. Furthermore, a comparison of pharmacogene allele frequencies between African and European populations was used to frame the potential impact of pre-emptive pharmacogenetic screening in SA. Enumerating the benefit of pre-emptive pharmacogenetic screening in SA will only be possible once we initiate its full application. However, regional genomic diversity, disease burden, and first-line treatment options could be harnessed to target stratified PGx today.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing

Safira Nur Izzah,Dimas Setyanto,Nurina Hasanatuludhhiyah,Danti Nur Indiastuti,Zamal Nasution,Annette d'Arqom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S303881

2021-05-04

Abstract:Purpose: This study aimed to measure the attitudes of Indonesian medical doctors and students toward new technology in genome editing. Materials and methods: Online questionnaires regarding attitudes toward genome editing on health and non-health conditions, both in somatic cells and embryo, were distributed through researcher networks, email and social media specific to medical doctors and students. The data of 1055 valid questionnaires were processed; descriptive and association analyses between sociodemographic factors and attitudes toward genome editing were performed. Email in-depth interview was performed to explore the respondents' answers. Results: The results showed that Indonesian medical doctors' and students' knowledge of genome editing was limited and correlated with gender, place of residence, religion, education, marital status, childbearing and experience abroad. More than half of respondents supported genome editing for the treatment of fatal and debilitating diseases both in somatic cells and embryos, implying their consent to edited gene inheritance. However, this approval decreased when applied to non-health-related aspects, such as physical appearance, intelligence and strength. Factors affecting their attitudes toward genome editing included their status as medical doctors or students, gender, age, education, religion, economic status and place of residence. Conclusion: Increasing knowledge and awareness of Indonesian medical doctors and students regarding genome editing is important. Even though its application in health-related matter was supported by a majority of the respondents, discussion from ethical and religious perspectives is necessary to ensure the acceptance.
Recent Developments in the Regulation of Heritable Human Genome Editing

S Soni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10332-w

Abstract:In 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui presented his research at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong. While it was intended that he facilitate a workshop, he was instead called on to present his research in heritable human genome editing, where he made the announcement that he had taken great strides in advancement of his research, to the extent that he had gene-edited human embryos and that this had resulted in the live births of two children. While his research ethic and methodology was interrogated, he insisted that two children, twin girls, had been born healthy and that there was another pregnancy (at the time) where birth of a third gene edited child would be imminent. This announcement generated a ripple effect in the scientific community and exposed the gaps in regulation and absence of law relating to the technology. This resulted in a flurry of activity and conversation around regulation of the technology, which scientists stated was not ready for human trials. This article reviews the Third Summit which was held in London in March 2023 and comments on the latest developments in the regulation of heritable human genome editing.
Focusing on Human Rights: a framework for CRISPR germline genome editing ethics and regulation

Kevin Doxzen,Jodi Halpern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0003

Abstract:The late 2018 announcement of the claimed births of CRISPR-edited babies has stimulated widespread condemnation and calls by some leading scientists for a moratorium on any further germline genome editing (GGE) for reproductive purposes. Concurrently, national and international bodies are calling for the development of robust guidelines and regulations that will identify permissible conditions under which such GGE efforts might eventually proceed. Crucially, these conditions go beyond rigorous safety standards to address some of the social and ethical concerns that arise with germline interventions. As these bodies convene to navigate this unique terrain, we suggest an important standard for generating ethically robust guidelines. Our approach builds from concerns about social exclusion and social justice with a focus on fundamental human rights. We believe that a deontological or rights-based approach, rather than a utilitarian approach, is needed to ensure that this socially disruptive technology minimizes further marginalization of people with disabilities and does not create a new form of social injustice. In pursuit of a deontological framework, we propose the implementation of an objective assessment tool: the Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). Use of the HRIA establishes necessary constraints on applications of GGE in order to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society.
Integrating Public Participation, Transparency and Accountability Into Governance of Marketing Authorisation for Genome Editing Products

Jane Nielsen,Lisa Eckstein,Dianne Nicol,Cameron Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.747838

2021-10-15

Frontiers in Political Science

Abstract:Public participation, transparency and accountability are three of the pillars of good governance. These pillars become particularly important for innovative, personalised health technologies, because of the tendency of these technologies to raise distinct scientific, ethical, legal and social issues. Genome editing is perhaps the most personal of all innovative health technologies, involving precise modifications to an individual’s genome. This article focuses on the adequacy of current requirements for public participation, transparency and accountability in the governance of the market authorisation for genome edited products. Although clinical trials for genome edited products are only just underway, lessons can be drawn from the marketing approvals pathways for related gene therapy products. This article provides a broad overview of the regulatory pathways that have been adopted by the US Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Authority, and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for reviewing gene therapy products for marketing approval. This analysis focuses on the extent to which public participation processes and transparency and accountability of review pathways are incorporated into marketing approval policy and practice. Following this review, the article proposes the application of Sheila Jasanoff’s “technologies of humility” as a foundation for meaningfully incorporating these pillars of good governance into regulatory processes for the review of products of genome editing. We conclude by articulating clear mechanisms for operationalising technologies of humility in the context of public participation, transparency and accountability, providing a blueprint for future policy development.
Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing

Margaret Waltz,Rebecca L Walker,Michael A Flatt,Douglas MacKay,John M Conley,Eric T Juengst,R Jean Cadigan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2024.0021

Abstract:Traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement goals for human genome editing (HGE) have animated oversight considerations, yet these categories have been complicated by the addition of prevention as a possible target for HGE applications. To assess the role these three categories might play in continued HGE governance efforts, we report on interviews with genome editing scientists and governance group members. While some accepted traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement and rejected the latter as unacceptable, others argued that the concept of enhancement is largely irrelevant or not as morally problematic as suggested. Others described how preventive goals for HGE create gray zones where prevention and enhancement may be difficult to distinguish, which may stymie uses of HGE. We conclude by discussing the governance implications of these various understandings of treatment, prevention, and enhancement as HGE research moves beyond the treatment of serious disease to embrace longer range preventive goals.
Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology

R. Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ASB.2016.0026

2016-12-29

Abstract:This paper provides an ethical analysis of the controversy that arose from the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing research involving human embryos that was conducted by a research team in Guangzhou, China, in 2015. It is argued that the researchers involved did not overstep ethical boundaries. This was confirmed to be the case in an international meeting of experts that was convened following the controversy. It is further argued that the controversy highlights the tension between two fundamentally different policies on developing genome editing technology – one proactionary and the other precautionary. This paper argues for a third approach, based on the policy of “crossing the river by probing stones”. Such an approach is consistent with current international recommendations to prioritise basic and pre-clinical research, and to allow the application of genome editing technology to somatic human cells. However, the application of the technology in germline genetic modification for human reproduction or enhancement for medical purposes should not be allowed at present. This is because the attending risks are not well understood and could be excessive or extraordinary, with little or no prospect of benefit. In addition, this paper calls for norms and regulations to be developed for genetically modifying non-human living things. Finally, the paper concludes with a letter that was sent by the author (and another) to the New York Times, setting out China’s fundamental stance on genetic modification involving humans and human derivatives.

Biology,Sociology,Philosophy,Medicine
Indigenous Perspectives and Gene Editing in Aotearoa New Zealand

Maui Hudson,Aroha Te Pareake Mead,David Chagné,Nick Roskruge,Sandy Morrison,Phillip L. Wilcox,Andrew C. Allan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00070

IF: 5.7

2019-04-11

Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

Abstract:Gene editing is arguably the most significant recent addition to the modern biotechnology toolbox, bringing both profoundly challenging and enabling opportunities. From a technical point of view the specificity and relative simplicity of these new tools has broadened the potential applications. However, from an ethical point of view it has re-ignited the debates generated by earlier forms of genetic modification. In New Zealand gene editing is currently considered genetic modification and is subject to approval processes under the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This process requires decision makers to take into account Māori perspectives. This article outlines previously articulated Māori perspectives on genetic modification and considers the continuing influence of those cultural and ethical arguments within the new context of gene editing. It also explores the range of ways cultural values might be used to analyse the risks and benefits of gene editing in the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Methods used to obtain these perspectives consisted of (a) review of relevant literature regarding lessons learned from the responses of Maori to genetic modification, (b) interviews of selected 'key Maori informants' and (c) surveys of self-selected individuals from groups with interests in either genetics or environmental management. The outcomes of this pilot study identified that while Māori informants were not categorically opposed to new and emerging gene editing technologies <i>a priori</i>, they suggest a dynamic approach to regulation is required where specific uses or types of uses are approved on a case by case basis. This study demonstrates how the cultural cues that Māori referenced in the genetic modification debate continue to be relevant in the context of gene editing but that further work is required to characterize the strength of various positions across the broader community.

multidisciplinary sciences

China's Belt and Road Initiative from a global health perspective.

A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review

Will South Africa become first country to accept controversial form of human genome editing?

Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals

The Forgotten Man: Sir John Lubbock: His contributions to zoology and his liberal record as a member of Parliament ought to be remembered.

Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public

Heritable human genome editing: correction, selection and treatment

Forcing a square into a circle: why South Africa's draft revised material transfer agreement is not fit for purpose

The Belgian DNA Debate: An Online Deliberative Platform on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Genomics

Awareness, experiences and perceptions regarding genetic testing and the return of genetic and genomics results in a hypothetical research context among patients in Uganda: a qualitative study

Enabling responsible public genomics

Participant recall and understandings of information on biobanking and future genomic research: experiences from a multi-disease community-based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa

Treatment of metastatic tumors of the choroid with proton beam irradiation.

The Case for Pre-Emptive Pharmacogenetic Screening in South Africa

Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Heritable Human Genome Editing

Focusing on Human Rights: a framework for CRISPR germline genome editing ethics and regulation

Integrating Public Participation, Transparency and Accountability Into Governance of Marketing Authorisation for Genome Editing Products

Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing

Debating Ethical Issues in Genome Editing Technology

Indigenous Perspectives and Gene Editing in Aotearoa New Zealand