Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Hum Gene Ther. 2022 Nov;33(21-22):1157-1163. doi: 10.1089/hum.2022.087. Epub 2022 Aug 22.
As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.
随着人类基因编辑研究的发展，各种知名的国际组织都在考虑如何最好地管理此类研究。但是，从事基因组编辑的科学家们认为他们应该在制定研究治理方面发挥什么作用呢？在这项研究中，我们展示了一项针对 212 名美国科学家的调查结果，这些科学家就人类基因组编辑治理发表了意见。大多数人认为，不应该允许科学家自行管理人类基因组编辑研究。开放式回答揭示了四个主要原因：利益冲突、罕见的“害群之马”不可避免、相反的历史证据以及科学专业知识的局限性。对开放式回答的分析还揭示了科学家们对人类基因编辑研究应该如何治理的看法。这些观点强调了跨学科的专业知识和公众的投入。研究结果说明了科学界对专业自治的传统观念发生了显著转变，这也为正在进行的制定研究治理方法的努力提供了信息。
