An imbalanced approach to governance? An analysis of the WHO's position on human genome editing
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21504619 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Donrich Thaldar (0000-0002-7346-3490, School of Law University of KwaZulu‐Natal Durban South Africa, corresponding author), Bonginkosi Shozi (0000-0003-2994-0795, School of Law University of KwaZulu‐Natal Durban South Africa) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 7 |
| Pages | 656-661 |
| Publication date | 2023-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.13193 |
| PMID | 37329575 |
| OpenAlex | W4381094613 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 2 |
In 2021, the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing (the ‘Committee’) published its policy recommendations. It proposes, inter alia, a set of nine values and principles to inform the governance of human genome editing (HGE) and makes recommendations regarding how HGE can be regulated. While these proposals contain valuable contributions to the discourse on the global governance of HGE, they also contain elements that call for heightened attention to the risks of the technology, and a countervailing focus on the potential benefits of the technology is missing. The Committee ostensibly prioritises restricting HGE technology in the interest of society as a collective but, in doing so, neglects to consider the interests and rights of individuals. In this article, we suggest that this approach is imbalanced insofar as it fails to give sufficient weight to the promise of this technology in considering the regulation of risks and disregards the importance of the fundamental liberties underlying the use of HGE in its discussion of values and principles that should guide governance. How this is problematic is illustrated with reference to the Committee's openness to using patents as HGE governance tools and its blanket rejection of ‘eugenics’. It is concluded that while the Committee makes some sensible recommendations on global governance, the Committee's approach of emphasising restrictions on HGE without also giving weight to the value of an open and liberal policy space is not something that liberal democratic states ought to follow
Business · Corporate governance · Democracy · Economics · Good governance · Human rights · Law and economics · Management · Openness to experience · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Intellectual Property and Patents · Law · Psychology · Public Administration
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |