Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov;33(21-22):1157-1163.
doi: 10.1089/hum.2022.087. Epub 2022 Aug 22.

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

R Jean Cadigan  1 , Margaret Waltz  1 , Gail E Henderson  1 , John M Conley  2 , Arlene M Davis  1 , Rami Major  3 , Eric T Juengst  1
Affiliations

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

R Jean Cadigan et al. Hum Gene Ther. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.

Keywords: gene editing; governance; oversight; survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing financial interests exist for R.J.C., M.W., G.E.H., J.M.C., A.M.D., R.M., and E.T.J.

References

    1. Jackson DA, Stich SP. Recombinant DNA Debate. Prentice Hall: Old Tappan, NJ; 1979.
    1. Yu H, Xue L, Barrangou R, et al. Toward inclusive global governance of human genome editing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021;118(47):e2118540118; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2118540118. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abbott A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL; 1988.
    1. Gorman EH, Sandefur RL. “Golden age,” quiescence, and revival: How the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work Occupat 2011;38(3):275–302; doi: 10.1177/0730888411417565. - DOI
    1. Susskind R, Susskind D. The Future of the Professions. Oxford University Press: London, England; 2015.

Publication types