Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.
Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/hum.2022.087
复制
发表时间：
2022-07
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
R. J. Cadigan;Margaret Waltz;J. M. Conley;G. Henderson;Arlene M Davis;Rami Major;E. Juengst
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. J. Cadigan;Margaret Waltz;J. M. Conley;G. Henderson;Arlene M Davis;Rami Major;E. Juengst
随着人类基因编辑研究的增长，许多著名的国际组织都在考虑如何最好地管理这类研究。但是，从事基因组编辑的科学家认为他们在发展研究治理方面应该扮演什么角色？在这里，我们介绍了一项对212名美国科学家进行的关于人类基因组编辑管理观点的调查结果。大多数人不认为科学家应该被允许自主管理人类基因组编辑研究。开放式答复揭示了四个主要原因：利益冲突、罕见的“坏苹果”的必然性、与之相反的历史证据以及科学专业知识的局限性。对开放式反应的分析也揭示了科学家们对人类基因编辑研究应该如何管理的观点。这些观点强调跨学科、专业和公众的投入。研究结果表明，科学界对专业自主的传统看法发生了值得注意的转变，并可以为正在进行的开发研究治理方法的努力提供信息。
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? Here, 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.