Suppr超能文献

基因组编辑的社会层面:公众作为利益相关者、动物研究中的人群和参与者。

The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research.

机构信息

Geography Department, University of Exeter, UK.

School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Lab Anim. 2022 Feb;56(1):88-96. doi: 10.1177/0023677221993157. Epub 2021 Feb 17.

Abstract

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science-society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect - and are expected - to play in the future development of genomic technologies.

摘要

基因组编辑在动物研究中的应用涉及到各种各样的政策问题和公众讨论。我们建议将重点放在公众对基因组编辑的看法上,而忽略了人们通过这些技术与动物研究产生关系的一系列立场。在本文中,我们探讨了公众在基因组编辑技术应用于动物生物医学研究中的三个关键角色。首先,通过调查和焦点小组,公众被定位为有意见的利益相关者,这些意见对研究技术的发展很重要。从欧洲对转基因食品的争议中吸取教训,这些方法被用于识别需要管理的科学与社会关系中的问题。其次,人们通过参与生物银行并提供数据被招募到研究项目中,通过呼吁公共利益来鼓励他们的贡献,并通过公众信心来维持。第三,患者在研究治理中越来越多地采取立场,作为资助小组的非专业评审员,他们的专业知识有助于使研究重点和实践与公众对研究的期望保持一致。这些多元化的公众群体不容易聚集成为一个简单或单一的基因组编辑公众意见。最后,我们建议需要更多地关注不同公众对未来基因组技术发展所期望的、以及预期的多种角色。

相似文献

1
The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research.
Lab Anim. 2022 Feb;56(1):88-96. doi: 10.1177/0023677221993157. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
2
An overview of the role of society and risk in xenotransplantation.
Xenotransplantation. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):523-32. doi: 10.1111/xen.12120. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
4
Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation.
Conserv Biol. 2019 Dec;33(6):1286-1295. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13310. Epub 2019 Jun 5.
5
Ecological validity and the study of publics: The case for organic public engagement methods.
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):77-91. doi: 10.1177/0963662513493575. Epub 2013 Jul 25.
6
Public knowledge and public trust.
Community Genet. 2006;9(3):204-10. doi: 10.1159/000092658.
7
Biobanks and the phantom public.
Hum Genet. 2011 Sep;130(3):433-40. doi: 10.1007/s00439-011-1065-y. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
8
From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy.
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):48-52. doi: 10.1177/0963662512472160.
9
The divide so wide: Public perspectives on the role of human genome editing in the US healthcare system.
Public Underst Sci. 2024 Feb;33(2):189-209. doi: 10.1177/09636625231189955. Epub 2023 Aug 28.
10
Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Oct;29(12):1823-1835. doi: 10.1177/1049732319846867. Epub 2019 May 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?
Public Underst Sci. 2024 Aug;33(6):725-739. doi: 10.1177/09636625241227091. Epub 2024 Feb 7.
2
Constructing the public in public perceptions research: A case study of forest genomics.
Public Underst Sci. 2024 May;33(4):483-503. doi: 10.1177/09636625231210453. Epub 2023 Dec 14.
3
Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society.
Front Vet Sci. 2023 Jun 15;10:1185706. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1185706. eCollection 2023.
5
Public consultation in the evaluation of animal research protocols.
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 1;16(12):e0260114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260114. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
When 'cultures of care' meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK.
Soc Cult Geogr. 2020 Sep 3;24(1):121-139. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2020.1814850. eCollection 2023.
2
Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare.
Med Humanit. 2020 Dec;46(4):499-511. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2019-011778. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
3
A global observatory for gene editing.
Nature. 2018 Mar;555(7697):435-437. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03270-w.
4
Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review.
Front Public Health. 2019 Apr 9;7:79. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079. eCollection 2019.
5
Knowledge engagement in gene drive research for malaria control.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Apr 25;13(4):e0007233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007233. eCollection 2019 Apr.
6
Harnessing Genetic Complexity to Enhance Translatability of Alzheimer's Disease Mouse Models: A Path toward Precision Medicine.
Neuron. 2019 Feb 6;101(3):399-411.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.040. Epub 2018 Dec 27.
7
High-throughput mouse phenomics for characterizing mammalian gene function.
Nat Rev Genet. 2018 Jun;19(6):357-370. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0005-2.
9
Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?
Transgenic Res. 2017 Jun;26(3):385-398. doi: 10.1007/s11248-017-0017-2. Epub 2017 Apr 21.
10
Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity.
Br Med Bull. 2017 Jun 1;122(1):17-29. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldx002.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验