Enabling decision-relevant debates about human genome editing

University Of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI

Investigators

Abstract

Recent breakthroughs in gene editing using CRISPR/Cas-9 and other tools allow scientists to edit the human genome in safer, faster, and more effective ways than ever before. This new technology also has the potential to cure as many as 6,000 genetically-inherited diseases and to transform healthcare in the U.S. At the same time, other potential applications have raised serious moral and ethical concerns. Given the wide variety of possible applications in fields ranging from medicine to national security, innovations in human gene editing (HGE) will increasingly necessitate public debate and societal decision making. However, as popular awareness of HGE grows, public discussions of the technology have the potential to become divisive in ways that could compromise meaningful and responsible development. The potential for this outcome is visible in controversies currently surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), an issue that raises similar technical and ethical questions, and which has led to consumer behavior that is often at odds with the best available scientific evidence. Thus, to encourage responsible innovation, this project develops and evaluates public engagement modalities that facilitate the productive exchange of ideas about HGE between groups with different values. The findings from this project help guide broader, emerging debates about HGE and will help ensure that policy and consumer choices are shaped both by the best available science and citizens' values and concerns. To accomplish its goals, this project integrates and advances diverse strands of theory and research on biased information processing concerning science and value-laden policy issues. In particular, it tests the potential for different informational and social environments to minimize polarization in public debate. The first phase uses laboratory and survey experiments to examine how values and information together shape opinions about HGE, and to test approaches for alleviating the negative effects of information processing that is biased toward predetermined conclusions. The findings from the first phase guide implementation and evaluation of a public workshop that will bring together diverse members of the public, including researchers in HGE, to interact with each other and discuss the technology. Insights from the workshop inform concrete strategies and best-practices that other organizations can adapt, scale, and apply to facilitate effective public engagement and healthy decision making across diverse publics. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.