Opinion: Toward inclusive global governance of human genome editing.

In recent years, many have considered how best to govern increasingly powerful genome editing technologies. Since 2015, more than 60 statements, declarations, and other codes of practice have been published by international organizations and scientific institutions (1). In particular, the 2018 birth of two twins, Lulu and Nana—whose HIV-receptors CCR5 were altered by biophysics researcher He Jiankui—triggered widespread condemnation from the scientific community, the public, and even legal institutions. Eminent organizations that have opined on the matter include the World Health Organization’s Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing (WHO committee) and the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing (the international commission). To date, reports have expressed common concerns over various issues in the governance of human genome editing—for example, whether to impose moratoriums on basic research and clinical activities in human heritable genome editing. They have also agreed on some general actions, such as encouraging public input and implementing regulations on preclinical and clinical research in human heritable genome editing—in particular as it pertains to the transparent disclosure of experiments underway and the documenting of protocols and patient consent responsibly. When it comes to genome editing technologies, we need to acknowledge and account for very different points of view from researchers and regions around the world. Image credit: Shutterstock/vchal. > The ethical implications of genome editing seemingly exacerbate the divergent views among stakeholders, especially those with different cultural backgrounds, ideologies, religious views, and commercial interests. But although most of the opinions, guidelines, and issues discussed in these reports are noteworthy and defensible, we argue that their effectiveness in guiding global governance is limited. Genome editing technology has grown too quickly, and stakeholders in the debate are too diverse, for current approaches to establish a robust, credible, and … [↵][1]2To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: schen{at}hnu.edu.cn or ying.huang{at}whu.edu.cn. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1