IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0319-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CRISPR in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Morrison

    (University of Oxford)

  • Stevienna de Saille

    (The University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Following the birth in 2018 of two babies from embryos altered using CRISPR-Cas9, human germline gene editing (GGE) moved from abstract concern to reality. He Jiankui, the scientist responsible, has been roundly condemned by most scientific, legal and ethical commentators. However, opinions remain divided on whether GGE could be acceptably used in the future, and how, or if it should be prohibited entirely. The many reviews, summits, positions statements and high-level meetings that have accompanied the emergence of CRISPR technology acknowledge this, calling for greater public engagement to help reach a consensus on how to proceed. These calls are laudable but far from unproblematic. Consensus is not only hugely challenging to reach, but difficult to measure and to know when it might be achieved. Engagement is clearly desirable, but engagement strategies need to avoid the limitations of previous encounters between publics and biotechnology. Here we set CRISPR in the context of the biotechnology and fertility industries to illustrate the lessons to be learned. In particular we demonstrate the importance of avoiding a ‘deficit mode’ in which resistance is attributed to a lack of public understanding of science, addressing the separation of technical safety criteria from ethical and social matters, and ensuring the scope of the debate includes the political-economic context in which science is conducted and new products and services are brought to market. Through this history, we draw on Mary Douglas’ classic anthropological notion of ‘matter out of place’ to explain why biotechnologies evoke feelings of unease and anxiety, and recommend this as a model for rehabilitating lay apprehension about novel biological technologies as legitimate matters of concern in future engagement exercises about GGE.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Morrison & Stevienna de Saille, 2019. "CRISPR in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0319-5
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0319-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0319-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0319-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Hermann Garden & David Winickoff, 2018. "Gene editing for advanced therapies: Governance, policy and society," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2018/12, OECD Publishing.
    2. David Cyranoski, 2019. "Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies," Nature, Nature, vol. 570(7760), pages 145-146, June.
    3. Les Levidow & Susan Carr, 1997. "How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 29-43, March.
    4. Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    5. Smits, Martijntje, 2006. "Taming monsters: The cultural domestication of new technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 489-504.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melanie Goisauf & Kaya Akyüz & Gillian M. Martin, 2020. "Moving back to the future of big data-driven research: reflecting on the social in genomics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Wendy Geuverink & Carla El & Martina Cornel & Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte & Janneke Gitsels & Linda Martin, 2023. "Between desire and fear: a qualitative interview study exploring the perspectives of carriers of a genetic condition on human genome editing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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. Preston, Christopher J. & Wickson, Fern, 2016. "Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 48-57.
    2. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    5. Manca, Terra, 2018. "Fear, rationality, and risky others: A qualitative analysis of physicians' and nurses' accounts of popular vaccine narratives," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-125.
    6. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    7. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Aslaksen, Iulie & Ingeborg Myhr, Anne, 2007. ""The worth of a wildflower": Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 489-497, January.
    9. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    10. Flipse, Steven M. & van der Sanden, Maarten C.A. & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2014. "Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 185-197.
    11. Koen Beumer, 2019. "How to include socio-economic considerations in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology? Two models from Kenya and South Africa," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 669-684, December.
    12. Faccilongo Nicola & Piermichele LaSala & Rimantas Stasys & Leonardo DiGioia, 2018. "Models of farms management and organization in social agriculture," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 107-118.
    13. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, January.
    14. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    15. Brielle Lillywhite & Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Risk Narrative of Emergency and Disaster Management, Preparedness, and Planning (EDMPP): The Importance of the ‘Social’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-36, December.
    16. Iulie Aslaksen & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2006. ""The worth of a wildflower" Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs," Discussion Papers 476, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Fletcher, Amy Lynn, 2008. "Bring ‘Em back alive: Taming the Tasmanian tiger cloning project," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 194-201.
    18. Robert Zimdahl, 1998. "Rethinking agricultural research roles," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 77-84, March.
    19. Leonie Drooge & Jack Spaapen, 2022. "Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 747-761, June.
    20. Mara Almeida & Robert Ranisch, 2022. "Beyond safety: mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0319-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.