Abstract
The aim of the presentation is to focus on the differences between two scientific contexts: the genetic engineering context of the 1970s, with specific attention paid to the use of the recombinant DNA technique to generate genetically modified molecules, and the current genome editing context, with specific attention paid to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to modify human germ line cells genetically. In both events, scientists have been involved in discussions that have gone beyond mere professional deontology touching on specific policy issues such as freedom of research, responsibility for the consequences of research, the right of the public to participate in the evaluation of the goals of research methods, the relationship between cost and benefit and possible social consequences. The comparison between these two scientific contexts suggests the need of handling such issues by defining procedures that meet the criteria of democracy and responsibility towards society. The underlying objective should be to effectively launch actions and interventions based not on a hierarchical approach but rather a reticular conception of knowledge.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Callon M (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc 4:81–94
Swazey JP, Sorenson JR, Wong CB (1978) Risks and benefits, rights and responsibilities: A history of the recombinant DNA research controversy. So Cal L Rev 51:1019–1078
Berg P (2008) Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature 455:290–291
Wade N (1973) Microbiology: hazardous profession faces new uncertainties. Science 182:566–567
Hellman A, Oxman M. N, Pollack R (1973) Biohazards in biological research. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California, January 22-24. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York
Singer M, Soll D (1973) Guidelines for DNA Hybrid Molecules. Science 181:1114
Berg P et al (1974) Letters, Potential biohazards of recombinant dna molecules. Science 185:303
Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO 3rd, Singer MF (1975) Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Science 188:991–994
NIH (1976) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. Fed Regist 41:27911
Berg P (1977) Recombinant DNA research can be safe. Trends Biochem Sci 2:25–27
Berg P (1977) Genetic engineering: challenge and responsibility. Ambio 6:253–261
Rogers M (1975) The Pandora’s box congress. Rolling Stone 139:34–78
Turney J (1998) Frankenstein's footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. Yale University Press, Yale
Capron AM, Schapiro R (2001) Remember Asilomar? Reexamining science’s ethical and social responsibility. Perspect Biol Med 44:162–169
Douglas HE (2003) The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). Am Philos Q 40:59–68
Jasanoff S (2005) Design on nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Liang PP, Xu YW, Zhang XY, Ding CH, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell 6:363–372
Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, Corn JE, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Fenner M, Greely HT, Jinek M, Martin GS, Penhoet E, Puck J, Sternberg SH, Weissman JS, Yamamoto KR (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germile gene modification. Science 348:36–38
Gregorowius D, Biller-Andorno N, Deplazes-Zemp A (2017) The role of scientific self-regulation for the control of genome editing in the human germline. EMBO Rep 18:355–358
Parthasarathy S (2015) Governance lessons for CRISPR/Cas9 from the missed opportunities of Asilomar. Ethics Biology Eng Med 6:3–4
Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB, Saha K (2015) CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues Sci Technol 32:25–32
Sarewitz D (2015) Science can’t solve it. Nature 522:413–414
Addison C, Taylor-Alexander S (2015) Gene editing and germ-line intervention: the need for novel responses to novel technologies. Mol Ther 23:1678–1680
Hurlbut JB (2015) Limits of responsibility: genome editing, Asilomar, and the politics of deliberation. Hast Cent Rep 45:11–14
U.S National Academy of Sciences, U.S National Academy of Medicine, The Royal Society, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2015) International summit on human gene editing. a global discussion. Commissioned Paper, December 1-3 2015. Washington, DC
Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Olson S, editor (2016) International summit on human gene editing: a global discussion. Meeting in Brief. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC
Blasimme A (2017) Governare il genoma: sapere e sovranità nei recenti sviluppi dell’ingegneria genetica. Notizie di Politeia 126:92–102
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London
Jasanoff S, Hurlbut JB (2018) A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 555:435–437
Hurlbut JB, Jasanoff S, Saha K (2018) Building capacity for a global editing observatory: conceptual challenges. Trends Biotechnol 36:639–641
Academy of Sciences of Hong Kong, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. National Academy of Medicine (2018) Statement by the organizing committee of the second international summit on human genome editing. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/news/2018/human-genome-editing-statement-29-11-2018.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2019
Lander E, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P et al (2019) Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567:166–168
Imperial College Health Partners (2016) Patient and public participation tool. https://imperialcollegehealthpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PPI-Tool-V2.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2019
Buyx A, Del Salvio L, Prainsack B, Völzke H (2017) Every participant is a PI. Citizen science and participatory governance in population studies. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw204
De Marchi B, Biggeri A, Cervino M, Mangia C et al (2017) A participatory project in environmental epidemiology: lessons from the Manfredonia case study (Italy 2015–2016). Public Health Panorama 3(2):321–327
Jasanoff S (2011) Rewriting life, reframing rights. In: Jasanoff S (ed) Reframing rights: bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp 1–27
Information About Attribution
The “Introduction” and the “Conclusion” sections are to be attributed to both authors; “Recombinant DNA and the Asilomar Conference (1975)” is to be attributed to Fabrizio Rufo; “2015: CRISPR-Cas9 Technology and Human Genome Editing” is to be attributed to Antonella Ficorilli.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they don't have potential conflicts of interest; the paper is not part of research involving human participants and/or animals; for the characteristics of the paper, no informed consent is required.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rufo, F., Ficorilli, A. From Asilomar to Genome Editing: Research Ethics and Models of Decision. Nanoethics 13, 223–232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00356-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00356-1