Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals
Community Engagement and Field Trials of Genetically Modified Insects and Animals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/hast.808
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Neuhaus, Carolyn P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Neuhaus, Carolyn P.
改变生物体基因的新技术正在为应对持续存在的公共卫生挑战创造新的战略。例如，Oxitec公司在国际上进行了实地试验，并试图在美国进行实地试验，转基因蚊子可用于控制登革热，寨卡病毒和其他一些蚊媒疾病。2016年，美国国家科学、工程和医学院委托撰写的一份报告讨论了另一种策略--使用基因驱动的潜在好处和风险。通过野生动物或昆虫种群驱动所需的基因型可能导致整个物种的不可逆遗传修饰。NASEM的报告建议社区、利益相关者和公众参与该技术的潜在用途，并认为这种参与应该随着研究的进展而发生，早在基因驱动部署之前。然而，“参与”在实践中的含义尚不清楚。本文旨在通过提供社区参与的理由来澄清这个问题，并指出社区参与的实施和预期结果的影响。当涉及到将转基因昆虫或动物释放到环境中的研究时，社区参与是必不可少的。相比之下，从居住在这种拟议的田间试验附近的人那里获得知情同意既不必要也不充分。借鉴审议民主的认识论和道德论，我提出了两个独立的社区参与机制：社区咨询委员会和审议论坛，这两个都没有被系统地纳入研究治理。拟议的机制将产生对居住在实地试验附近的人的尊重，即使审议结果推翻了一些人的偏好。社区参与突出了我们对人类与自然关系的思考，这意味着决定将转基因昆虫或动物释放到野外应该是一个集体决定，而不是由产品开发商，政策制定者，私营公司，研究资助者或科学家单独做出的决定。
New techniques for the genetic modification of organisms are creating new strategies for addressing persistent public health challenges. For example, the company Oxitec has conducted field trials internationally—and has attempted to conduct field trials in the United States—of a genetically modified mosquito that can be used to control dengue, Zika, and some other mosquito‐borne diseases. In 2016, a report commissioned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine discussed the potential benefits and risks of another strategy, using gene drives. Driving a desired genotype through a population of wild animals or insects could lead to irreversible genetic modification of an entire species. The NASEM report recommends community, stakeholder, and public engagement about potential uses of the technology, and it argues that the engagement should occur as research advances, well before gene drives are deployed. Yet what “engagement” means in practice is unclear. This article seeks clarity on this problem by offering a justification for community engagement and drawing out implications of this argument for the implementation and desired outcomes of community engagement.Community engagement is essential when it comes to research that would release genetically modified insects or animals into the environment. By contrast, obtaining informed consent from people who live near such a proposed field trial is neither necessary nor sufficient. Drawing on the epistemic and moral arguments for deliberative democracy, I propose two discrete mechanisms of community engagement: community advisory boards and deliberative forums, neither of which has been systematically incorporated into research governance. The proposed mechanisms would engender respect for persons who live near field trials, even when the results of deliberation override some individuals’ preferences. Community engagement foregrounds the community in our thinking about humans’ relationship to nature, and it implies that deciding to release genetically modified insects or animals into the wild ought to be a collective decision, not one made by product developers, policy‐makers, private companies, research funders, or scientists alone.