Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan

被引:2
|
作者
Aikyo, Tatsuki [1 ,2 ]
Kogetsu, Atsushi [1 ]
Kato, Kazuto [1 ]
机构
[1] Osaka Univ, Grad Sch Med, Dept Biomed Ethics & Publ Policy, Osaka, Japan
[2] Hiroshima Univ, Grad Sch Biomed & Hlth Sci, Hiroshima, Japan
基金
日本科学技术振兴机构;
关键词
Human genome editing; Human embryo research; Expert panel on Bioethics; Japan; Ethics review; Governance; Stakeholder involvement; STEM-CELL RESEARCH; BIOETHICS; DEMOCRACY; LESSONS; EMBRYO;
D O I
10.1007/s41649-023-00251-8
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.
引用
收藏
页码:431 / 455
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan
    Tatsuki Aikyo
    Atsushi Kogetsu
    Kazuto Kato
    Asian Bioethics Review, 2023, 15 : 431 - 455
  • [2] Global Governance of Human Genome Editing: What Are the Rules?
    Marchant, Gary E.
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENOMICS AND HUMAN GENETICS, VOL 22, 2021, 2021, 22 : 385 - 405
  • [3] Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals
    Cadigan, R. Jean
    Waltz, Margaret
    Conley, John M.
    Major, Rami M.
    Branch, Elizabeth K.
    Juengst, Eric T.
    Flatt, Michael A.
    NEW GENETICS AND SOCIETY, 2024, 43 (01)
  • [4] Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance
    Juengst, Eric
    Flatt, Michael A.
    Conley, John M.
    Davis, Arlene
    Henderson, Gail
    Mackay, Douglas
    Major, Rami
    Walker, Rebecca L.
    Cadigan, R. Jean
    HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 2024, 54 (05) : 14 - 23
  • [5] Governance Choices of Genome Editing Patents
    Scheinerman, Naomi
    Sherkow, Jacob S. S.
    FRONTIERS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 3
  • [6] Responsible governance of human germline genome editing in China†
    Peng, Yaojin
    Lv, Jianwei
    Ding, Lulu
    Gong, Xia
    Zhou, Qi
    BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION, 2022, 107 (01) : 261 - 268
  • [7] An imbalanced approach to governance? An analysis of the WHO's position on human genome editing
    Thaldar, Donrich
    Shozi, Bonginkosi
    BIOETHICS, 2023, 37 (07) : 656 - 661
  • [8] Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research
    Cadigan, R. Jean
    Waltz, Margaret
    Henderson, Gail E.
    Conley, John M.
    Davis, Arlene M.
    Major, Rami
    Juengst, Eric T.
    HUMAN GENE THERAPY, 2022, 33 (21-22) : 1157 - 1163
  • [10] Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance
    Ortwin Renn
    International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2015, 6 : 8 - 20