Editors note: This is a guest post from Caroline Simons who is attending the two Paris meetings on human gene editing. For more background on those meetings see here. By Caroline Simons There were just over a hundred participants at the workshop organized by the Federation of European Academies of Medicine, the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the Académie Nationale de Médicine France. That number included experts in the fields of science, medicine, law and bioethics. They came from Europe, the US and …Read More
How do governance issues for human genome editing work at the international level? Indira Nath, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, gives a nice overview to start the session. She raised the example of medical tourism and surrogacy in India. She argued for an international consensus on what is permissible on human gene editing. How do we ensure that there is equity? Gary Marchant, Arizona State University, talks about how international governance could work. Why would we potentially want such governance? You could prevent …Read More
Now we have an interesting panel starting on questions of governance on human gene editing. This will focus on institutional and national levels of governance. Pilar N. Ossorio, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Morgridge Institute for Research, is introducing the panel. Key question: how should emerging technologies being governed? Jonathan Kimmelman, from McGill, was the first speaker. How do we evaluate risk versus benefit with human genetic modification? Particularly how to answer this question in the context of clinical trials? Benefit should be defined as …Read More
Note that this poll is focused on germline, heritable genetic modification. Thus, it does not include somatic cell/gene therapy applications.