Hastings Cent Rep. 2019 May;49(3):43-44. doi: 10.1002/hast.1007.
As Achim Rosemann and colleagues rightly suggest in their article "Heritable Genome Editing in Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges," in this issue of the Hastings Center Report, the scientific, ethical, and governance challenges associated with heritable genome editing are global in scope. Both the genetic interventions and the social and moral judgments about human identity and integrity associated with them will affect all humanity. Yet the worries, problems, and solutions that the study illuminates reflect only a partial picture of those challenges. That is to be expected from a study of this sort: the "stakeholders" who were consulted are a limited group and as such are bound to provide a particular, limited picture. One of the important contributions that such a study can make is in providing a picture of what problems particular kinds of experts see as the primary problems and how the framing of those problems may displace other questions and perspectives, especially when such parochial framings of problems are elevated to the level of the "global." Rosemann et al. do not explain how participants were identified as stakeholders or, indeed, how the study identified the stakes. This is a missed opportunity, and it points toward a set of questions that themselves need to be asked about how the stakeholders-and the stakes-of global governance of heritable genome editing are identified.
正如阿希姆·罗塞曼（Achim Rosemann）和同事在本期《 Hastings Center 报告》中题为“全球背景下可遗传基因组编辑：国家和国际政策挑战”的文章中正确指出的那样，可遗传基因组编辑所带来的科学、伦理和治理挑战具有全球性。与可遗传基因组编辑相关的遗传干预以及关于人类身份和完整性的社会和道德判断将影响全人类。然而，该研究阐明的担忧、问题和解决方案仅反映了这些挑战的部分情况。从这类研究中可以预料到这一点：所咨询的“利益相关者”是一个有限的群体，因此必然会提供特定的、有限的图景。此类研究的一个重要贡献是提供了一幅特定类型的专家认为哪些问题是主要问题的图景，以及这些问题的框架如何可能取代其他问题和观点，尤其是当这些狭隘的问题框架被提升到“全球”层面时。罗塞曼等人没有解释研究参与者是如何被确定为利益相关者的，也没有解释研究是如何确定利益相关者的。这是一个错失的机会，它指向了一系列问题，这些问题本身需要被问到，即如何确定可遗传基因组编辑的全球治理的利益相关者和利益。
