iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance
Gene drives have already challenged governance systems. In this case study, we explore the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition's experiences in gene drive-related research and lessons in developing, revising, and implementing a governance system. iGEM's experien...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Mary Ann Liebert Inc
2023
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/148676 |
| _version_ | 1811095799123148800 |
|---|---|
| author | Millett, Piers Alexanian, Tessa Palmer, Megan J Evans, Sam Weiss Kuiken, Todd Oye, Kenneth |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science Millett, Piers Alexanian, Tessa Palmer, Megan J Evans, Sam Weiss Kuiken, Todd Oye, Kenneth |
| author_sort | Millett, Piers |
| collection | MIT |
| description | Gene drives have already challenged governance systems. In this case study, we explore the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition's experiences in gene drive-related research and lessons in developing, revising, and implementing a governance system. iGEM's experiences and lessons are distilled into 6 key insights for future gene drive policy development in the United States: (1) gene drives deserve special attention because of their potential for widescale impact and remaining uncertainty about how to evaluate intergenerational and transboundary risks; (2) an adaptive risk management approach is logical for gene drives because of the rapidly changing technical environment; (3) review by individual technical experts is limited and may fail to incorporate other forms of expertise and, therefore, must be complemented with a range of alternative governance methods; (4) current laboratory biosafety and biosecurity review processes may not capture gene drive research or its components in practice even if they are covered theoretically; (5) risk management for research and development must incorporate discussions of values and broader implications of the work; and (6) a regular technology horizon scanning capacity is needed for the early identification of advances that could pose governance system challenges. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:28:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/148676 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:28:23Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publisher | Mary Ann Liebert Inc |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1486762023-03-24T03:02:36Z iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance Millett, Piers Alexanian, Tessa Palmer, Megan J Evans, Sam Weiss Kuiken, Todd Oye, Kenneth Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science Gene drives have already challenged governance systems. In this case study, we explore the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition's experiences in gene drive-related research and lessons in developing, revising, and implementing a governance system. iGEM's experiences and lessons are distilled into 6 key insights for future gene drive policy development in the United States: (1) gene drives deserve special attention because of their potential for widescale impact and remaining uncertainty about how to evaluate intergenerational and transboundary risks; (2) an adaptive risk management approach is logical for gene drives because of the rapidly changing technical environment; (3) review by individual technical experts is limited and may fail to incorporate other forms of expertise and, therefore, must be complemented with a range of alternative governance methods; (4) current laboratory biosafety and biosecurity review processes may not capture gene drive research or its components in practice even if they are covered theoretically; (5) risk management for research and development must incorporate discussions of values and broader implications of the work; and (6) a regular technology horizon scanning capacity is needed for the early identification of advances that could pose governance system challenges. 2023-03-23T16:11:43Z 2023-03-23T16:11:43Z 2022 2023-03-23T15:41:19Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/148676 Millett, Piers, Alexanian, Tessa, Palmer, Megan J, Evans, Sam Weiss, Kuiken, Todd et al. 2022. "iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance." Health Security, 20 (1). en 10.1089/HS.2021.0157 Health Security Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ application/pdf Mary Ann Liebert Inc Mary Ann Liebert |
| spellingShingle | Millett, Piers Alexanian, Tessa Palmer, Megan J Evans, Sam Weiss Kuiken, Todd Oye, Kenneth iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title | iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title_full | iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title_fullStr | iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title_full_unstemmed | iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title_short | iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance |
| title_sort | igem and gene drives a case study for governance |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/148676 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT millettpiers igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance AT alexaniantessa igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance AT palmermeganj igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance AT evanssamweiss igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance AT kuikentodd igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance AT oyekenneth igemandgenedrivesacasestudyforgovernance |