Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

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.

Automated summary

This study presents the views of 212 U.S.-based scientists on the governance of human genome editing research. Most scientists do not believe that scientists should self-govern human genome editing research due to conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare bad apples, historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Scientists emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input in governing human gene editing research.