Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing.

WHO in 2019 established the Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing, which has recently published a Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing. Although the Draft Framework is a good point of departure, there are four areas of concern: first, it does not sufficiently address issues related to establishing safety and efficacy. Second, issues that are a source of tension between global standard setting and state sovereignty need to be addressed in a more nuanced fashion. Third, it fails to meaningfully engage with the extent to which the conceptualisation of human dignity may justifiably vary between jurisdictions. Fourth, the meaning of harm to the interests of a future person requires clarity. Provided these four areas of concern can be addressed, the future of the global governance of human genome editing may hold promise.

Distributing responsibility in the debate on sustainable biofuels.

In the perception of technology innovation two world views compete for domination: technological and social determinism. Technological determinism holds that societal change is caused by technological developments, social determinism holds the opposite. Although both were quite central to discussion in the philosophy, history and sociology of technology in the 1970s and 1980s, neither is seen as mainstream now. They do still play an important role as background philosophies in societal debates and offer two very different perspectives on where the responsibilities for an ethically sound development of novel technologies lie. In this paper we will elaborate on these to two opposing views on technology development taking the recent debate on the implementation of biofuels as a case example.

Implementing the Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice-a case study.

Widespread enthusiasm for establishing scientific codes of conduct notwithstanding, the utility of such codes in influencing scientific practice is not self-evident. It largely depends on the implementation phase following their establishment--a phase which often receives little attention. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for guiding effective implementation through an assessment of one particular code of conduct in one particular institute. Based on a series of interviews held with researchers at the Department of Biotechnology of Delft University of Technology, this paper evaluates how the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice is received by those it is supposed to govern. While respondents agreed that discussion of the guiding principles of scientific conduct is called for, they did not consider the code as such to be a useful instrument. As a tool for the individual scientific practitioner, the code leaves a number of important questions unanswered in relation to visibility, enforcement, integration with daily practice and the distribution of responsibility. Recommendations are provided on the basis of these questions. There is more at stake than merely holding scientific practitioners to a proper exercise of their duties; implementation of scientific society codes of conduct also concerns the further motives and value commitments that gave rise to their establishment in the first place.

Future societal issues in industrial biotechnology.

Three international stakeholder meetings were organized by The Netherlands-based "Kluyver Center for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation" with the objective to identify the future societal issues in the field of industrial biotechnology and to develop a coordinated strategy for public dialogue. The meetings resulted in five unanimous recommendations: (i) that science, industry and the European Commission in conjunction with other stakeholders create a comprehensive roadmap towards a bio-based economy; (ii) that the European Commission initiate a series of round-table meetings to further articulate the views, interests and responsibilities of the relevant stakeholders and to define policy; (iii) that the development of new innovative communication activities is stimulated to increase public engagement and to discuss the ways that we do or do not want technologies to shape our common future; (iv) that further social studies are undertaken on public attitudes and behaviors to the bio-based economy and that novel methods are developed to assess public views of future technological developments; and (v) that the concept of sustainability is further operationalized and taken as a core value driving research and development and policy making.

The GM public debate: context and communication strategies.

Science communication is developing a new approach that promotes dialogue between scientists and the public. A recent example is the debate on the possible introduction of genetically modified crops into the United Kingdom. As this exercise in public engagement draws to a close, we consider the context in which this debate has taken place, and the challenges of developing such interactions between science and society.