IANUS partners LSE and AcumenIST conducted a historical case study to examine public perceptions towards trust in Genome Modifications and Genome Editing. The introduction of genome modifications brought genes into the public domain. This led to concerns that gene manipulation was ‘playing god’ and a ‘slippery slope’ to who knows where. Genome modifications were seen as unnatural, leading to monstrosities, adulteration, and infections. Animal cloning was greeted with the idea of cloning both film stars and tyrants. There is evidence that as people become more informed about genome editing, they incline to be more supportive. The literature highlights the need for scientists and clinicians to be competent and active in public engagement. In so doing, there is a need for transparency, integrity, and honesty, avoiding the overclaiming of potential benefits and denying the possibility of shorter and longer-term risks.
Medical applications and therapies that cure diseases and bring patients back to ‘normal’ are likely to attract support. Interventions to enhance persons above the normal will be seen as unacceptable. The spectre of eugenics and separately distributional inequities raise major concerns. Those for whom the ‘sanctity of life’ is a strong value orientation may consider research on human embryos unacceptable.
Genome editing is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism’s DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome. Several approaches to genome editing have been developed. A well-known one is called CRISPR-Cas9, which is short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9. The CRISPR-Cas9 system has generated a lot of excitement in the scientific community because it is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other genome editing methods.
However, there is a consensus in the scientific community that the safety and efficacy of germline/heritable genome editing has not been established and that regulation should recognise this fact. This implies that regulation of genome editing will evolve as scientific evidence comes on stream. To retain confidence and trust in the regulation of genome editing, procedures for transparent public debate should be designed and implemented. The regulation of genome editing in the European Union is complex and lacks definitional clarity on a number of fundamental issues. In the absence of coherent regulatory arrangements, it is uncertain how any form of internationally agreements could be achieved.
Applied to crops and foods, the public response in a number of countries to genome editing is relatively positive as long as it offers personal or societal benefits. With echoes of genome modifications, those involved in genome editing outline a range of possible benefits with no time scale or probability of successful development.