Escuela de Filosofía (School of Philosophy), Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.
CRISPR J. 2020 Apr;3(2):83-88. doi: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0045.
I want to enrich the debate about the ethics and governance of human germline editing (HGE) by emphasizing an underappreciated, yet important, set of concerns regarding exclusionary practices, norms, and efforts that impede a broader discussion about the subject. The possibility for establishing a binding, global, regulatory framework is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors as well as historical processes and sociopolitical problems, such as anti-scientific social movements and the politicization of science. Likewise, it is influenced by different understanding, epistemic resources, and goals between the CRISPR/genome editing community and the rest of society. In this Perspective, I explain the concept of "techno-scientific colonialist paternalism" and why it negatively affects our discussion around HGE. I also discuss the pitfalls of scientific self-regulation, and finally, I advocate that the implementation of HGE should cease to allow time and care for a thoughtful global discussion to emerge.
我想通过强调一组被低估但又很重要的关注点,来丰富关于人类生殖系编辑(HGE)的伦理和治理的辩论,这些关注点涉及排斥性做法、规范以及阻碍更广泛讨论该主题的努力。建立具有约束力的、全球性的监管框架的可能性受到经济和地缘政治因素以及历史进程和社会政治问题的影响,例如反科学的社会运动和科学的政治化。同样,这也受到 CRISPR/基因组编辑界与社会其他部分之间不同理解、认识资源和目标的影响。在本观点中,我解释了“技术-科学殖民主义家长制”的概念,以及为什么它会对我们围绕 HGE 的讨论产生负面影响。我还讨论了科学自我监管的陷阱,最后,我主张停止实施 HGE,以便有时间和机会进行深思熟虑的全球讨论。