IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i6p788-798..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promissory ethical regimes: publics and public goods in genome editing for human health
[Genome Editing in Human Cells – An Initial Statement]

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Wienroth
  • Jackie Leach Scully

Abstract

This paper analyses promissory discourse for genome editing and human health in the UK, attending to the articulation of public goods and their beneficiary publics. Focusing on promissory reasoning about an emerging technology field as anticipatory and ethical considerations as integral to such debates, the notion of ethical regime as a mode of governance is applied to the concept of promissory regime. By analyzing key documents and interviews with opinion leaders—thus focusing on the discursive dimension—an enabling promissory ethical regime for genome editing and its contestation are identified. This regime posits scientific knowledge production now, and improved treatment or prevention of hereditary diseases later, as key goods of genome editing for human health and as a sociotechnical project worthy of support. Specific publics are created as beneficiaries. These publics and goods play out as ethical rationales for the promissory governance of the emerging field of human genome editing.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Wienroth & Jackie Leach Scully, 2021. "Promissory ethical regimes: publics and public goods in genome editing for human health [Genome Editing in Human Cells – An Initial Statement]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 788-798.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:6:p:788-798.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scab052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benny Haerlin & Doug Parr, 1999. "How to restore public trust in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6744), pages 499-499, August.
    2. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Zvirgzdiņš Jānis & Plotka Kaspars & Geipele Sanda, 2018. "Eco-Economics in Cities and Rural Areas," Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Sciendo, vol. 6(1), pages 88-99, July.
    3. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Viscecchia, Rosaria, 2017. "On consumption patterns in oyster markets: the role of attitudes," MPRA Paper 76789, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Neagu Olimpia & Dumiter Florin & Braica Alexandra & Jimon Ștefania & David Gabriela, 2019. "The Correlation Between Human Capital and Gross Added Value in the Bioeconomy Sectors at the European Union (EU) Country Level," Studia Universitatis „Vasile Goldis” Arad – Economics Series, Sciendo, vol. 29(1), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    6. Cardillo, Concetta & Cimino, Orlando & Henke, Roberto & Vanni, Francesco, 2012. "Delivering public goods in agriculture: the cost of green payments for Italian farms," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 126139, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    9. Joshua Henkel, 2022. "Economics & Biology: The whole is something besides the parts – a complementary approach to a bioeconomy," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2210, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    10. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:717 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Sophie Urmetzer & Andreas Pyka, 2017. "Varieties of Knowledge-Based Bioeconomies," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Stephan Dabbert & Iris Lewandowski & Jochen Weiss & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Knowledge-Driven Developments in the Bioeconomy, pages 57-82, Springer.
    12. Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2018. "Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 684-684, August.
    13. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Marius PASCULEA, 2015. "Strategic options of public policy for developing the bioeconomy sector in Romania," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 41(2(50)), pages 190-200, december.
    15. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, 2022. "Is the readability of abstracts decreasing in management research?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1063-1084, May.
    16. Asada, Raphael & Stern, Tobias, 2018. "Competitive Bioeconomy? Comparing Bio-based and Non-bio-based Primary Sectors of the World," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 120-128.
    17. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Matthew Herder & Jennifer Brian, 2008. "Canada’s Stem Cell Corporation: Aggregate Concerns and the Question of Public Trust," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 73-84, January.
    19. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    20. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    21. Josh Bullock & Justin E. Lane & F. LeRon Shults, 2022. "What causes COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy? Ignorance and the lack of bliss in the United Kingdom," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:6:p:788-798.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.