Suppr超能文献

为环境基因编辑中的无声者发声。

Giving Voice to the Voiceless in Environmental Gene Editing.

出版信息

Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S66-S73. doi: 10.1002/hast.1322.

Abstract

Participatory deliberation, whereby diverse experts and publics collectively engage in decision-making, can ensure a more informed and just decision by centering historically marginalized perspectives and engaging a spectrum of value systems. Broad and diverse participation is crucial for the equitable distribution of risks and benefits resulting from complex and uncertain decisions such as environmental gene editing. From an ethical position that gives intrinsic value to the nonhuman and recognizes the interconnectedness of species across generations, we argue that deliberation over environmental gene editing must include the voice of nature and the voice of future generations. Inclusion of these key participant groups can encourage reflection on the human relationship with nature and help safeguard intergenerational equity of decisions reached. By drawing from the legal rights of nature movement, the Boardman River Dams Project, and methods for representative participation, we offer strategies for inclusion of nonhuman nature and future generations in deliberative processes about environmental gene editing and other crucial decisions about our shared environments.

摘要

参与式审议,即不同的专家和公众共同参与决策,可以通过关注历史上被边缘化的观点和涉及一系列价值体系,确保更明智和公正的决策。广泛和多样化的参与对于公平分配复杂和不确定决策(如环境基因编辑)所带来的风险和利益至关重要。从赋予非人类内在价值并认识到跨代物种相互联系的伦理立场出发,我们认为,环境基因编辑的审议必须包括自然的声音和后代的声音。纳入这些关键参与群体可以鼓励人们反思人类与自然的关系,并有助于维护所做出的决策在代际间的公平性。我们借鉴自然权利运动、布特曼河大坝项目以及代表性参与方法,为将非人类自然和后代纳入关于环境基因编辑和我们共同环境的其他关键决策的审议过程提供了策略。

相似文献

1
Giving Voice to the Voiceless in Environmental Gene Editing.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S66-S73. doi: 10.1002/hast.1322.
2
Narratives in Public Deliberation: Empowering Gene Editing Debate with Storytelling.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S85-S91. doi: 10.1002/hast.1324.
3
Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S42-S47. doi: 10.1002/hast.1319.
4
Does Gene Editing in the Wild Require Broad Public Deliberation?
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S34-S41. doi: 10.1002/hast.1318.
5
Deficits of Public Deliberation in U.S. Oversight for Gene Edited Organisms.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S25-S33. doi: 10.1002/hast.1317.
6
Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S2-S10. doi: 10.1002/hast.1314.
7
Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S74-S84. doi: 10.1002/hast.1323.
8
Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors.
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Oct 6;21(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00527-w.
9
The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Nov;51 Suppl 2:S48-S61. doi: 10.1002/hast.1320.
10
Governance of Heritable Human Gene Editing World-Wide and Beyond.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 31;19(11):6739. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116739.

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