Abstract
Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference61 articles.
1. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
2. S. O. Funtowicz , J. R. Ravetz , “Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science” in Social Theories of Risk, S. Krimsky , D. Golding , Eds. (Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992), pp. 251–274.
3. Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science;Brossard;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Sci.,2019
4. CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation;Jasanoff;Issues Sci. Technol.,2015
5. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing
Cited by
54 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献