The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."

The public-private research ecosystem in the genome editing era.

Biomedical research in the US has long been conducted in a public-private (PP) "ecosystem." Today, especially with gene therapies and genome editing-based medicine, publicly funded researchers frequently hand off their research to the private sector for clinical development, often to small, venture capital-funded startups in which they have a financial interest. This trend raises ethical questions about conflicts of interest, effectiveness of regulatory oversight, and justice in therapy access, that we are addressing in a multi-year, multidisciplinary study of the evolving governance of genome editing. This paper draws on interviews with scientists working across the PP divide and their private sector business and financial partners. We find little concern about potential ethical dilemmas, with two exceptions expressed by public sector scientists: concerns about inequitable access to treatments due to disparities in wealth, ethnicity, and health insurance benefits; and about whether their private collaborators' profit motive may affect their research objectives.

Development of PainFace software to simplify, standardize, and scale up mouse grimace analyses.

ABSTRACT: Facial grimacing is used to quantify spontaneous pain in mice and other mammals, but scoring relies on humans with different levels of proficiency. Here, we developed a cloud-based software platform called PainFace (http://painface.net) that uses machine learning to detect 4 facial action units of the mouse grimace scale (orbitals, nose, ears, whiskers) and score facial grimaces of black-coated C57BL/6 male and female mice on a 0 to 8 scale. Platform accuracy was validated in 2 different laboratories, with 3 conditions that evoke grimacing-laparotomy surgery, bilateral hindpaw injection of carrageenan, and intraplantar injection of formalin. PainFace can generate up to 1 grimace score per second from a standard 30 frames/s video, making it possible to quantify facial grimacing over time, and operates at a speed that scales with computing power. By analyzing the frequency distribution of grimace scores, we found that mice spent 7x more time in a "high grimace" state following laparotomy surgery relative to sham surgery controls. Our study shows that PainFace reproducibly quantifies facial grimaces indicative of nonevoked spontaneous pain and enables laboratories to standardize and scale-up facial grimace analyses.

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.