The Intrinsic Value of Public Deliberation in the Governance of Human Genome Editing

American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):63-65 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Public deliberation has increasingly become the gold standard for citizens’ participation in the governance of science and technology, with a growing body of research suggesting that deliberative p...

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265161.2023.2215608

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing.Bonginkosi Shozi, Tamanda Kamwendo, Julian Kinderlerer, Donrich W. Thaldar, Beverley Townsend & Marietjie Botes - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (3):165-168.
Imperatives of Governance: Human Genome Editing and the Problem of Progress.J. Benjamin Hurlbut - 2020 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (1):177-194.
Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens’ Juries.Naomi Scheinerman - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (12):66-76.
The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.John M. Conley, R. Jean Cadigan, Arlene M. Davis, Eric T. Juengst, Kriste Kuczynski, Rami Major, Hayley Stancil, Julio Villa-Palomino, Margaret Waltz & Gail E. Henderson - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):9-16.
Debating Genome Editing Technologies.Lukas Kaelin - 2018 - In Matthias Braun, Hannah Schickl & Peter Dabrock (eds.), Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty: Ethical, Legal and Societal Challenges of Human Genome Editing. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. pp. 187-201.
Reproductive genome editing interventions are therapeutic, sometimes.César Palacios-González - 2021 - Bioethics 35 (6):557-562.
Public views on gene editing and its uses.Hub Zwart, George Gaskell & Imre Bard - 2017 - Nature Biotechnology 35 (11):121-123.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
Handservant of Technocracy.Christian Ross - 2022 - Spontaneous Generations 10 (1):63-87.
“Involuntary (Moral) Bioenhancement” Can Add Value to the Debate on Human Germline Genome Editing.Vojin Rakić - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (9):54-56.
Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing.Carolyn P. Neuhaus - 2021 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (4):27-39.
Deliberative Mini-Publics and Equity: Procedural Benefits and Promising Outcomes for Gene Editing.Naomi Scheinerman - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (7):74-76.
Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.Tatsuki Aikyo, Atsushi Kogetsu & Kazuto Kato - 2023 - Asian Bioethics Review 15 (4):431-455.
Is South Africa ready for the future of human germline genome editing? Comparing South African law and recent proposals for global governance.T. Kamwendo & B. Shozi - 2021 - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 14 (3):97-100.
Untangling the Promises of Human Genome Editing.Katherine Drabiak - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (4):991-1009.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-22

Downloads
16 (#909,949)

6 months
12 (#218,039)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

When deliberation produces extremism.David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein & Reid Hastie - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (2-3):227-252.
When Deliberation Produces Extremism.David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein & Reid Hastie - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (2):227-252.

Add more references