Does Gene Editing in the Wild Require Broad Public Deliberation?
How strong is the argument for requiring public deliberation by very large publics—at national or even global levels—before moving forward with efforts to use gene editing on wild populations of plants or animals? Should there be a general moratorium on any such efforts until such broad public delib...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021
|
| In: |
The Hastings Center report
Year: 2021, Volume: 51, Pages: 34-41 |
| Further subjects: | B
de-extinction
B Bioethics B democratic deliberation B gene drives B gene editing B public deliberation |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1787217167 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220126142239.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220126s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/hast.1318 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1787217167 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1787217167 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kaebnick, Gregory E. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 109 | |a Kaebnick, Gregory E. |a Kaebnick, Gregory | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Does Gene Editing in the Wild Require Broad Public Deliberation? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a How strong is the argument for requiring public deliberation by very large publics—at national or even global levels—before moving forward with efforts to use gene editing on wild populations of plants or animals? Should there be a general moratorium on any such efforts until such broad public deliberation has been successfully carried out? This article works toward recommendations about the need for and general framing of broad public deliberation. It finds that broad public deliberation is highly desirable but not flatly necessary before moving forward with any local cases of gene editing in the wild. It also finds that broad public deliberation would be most helpful in generating very general guidance and is unlikely to be appropriate for specific cases. Broad public deliberation is most helpful for cases that involve higher levels of uncertainty and moral ambiguity, but separating out a distinct class of cases for deliberation is not yet possible. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Bioethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a de-extinction | |
| 650 | 4 | |a democratic deliberation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gene drives | |
| 650 | 4 | |a gene editing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a public deliberation | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |a Hastings Center |t The Hastings Center report |d Malden, Mass. : Wiley, 1971 |g 51(2021,S2), S. S34-S41 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)341346551 |w (DE-600)2067369-3 |w (DE-576)258761822 |x 1552-146X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:51 |g year:2021 |g supplement:S2 |g pages:34-41 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1318 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hast.1318 |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 936 | u | w | |d 51 |j 2021 |f S2 |h 34-41 |y 51(2021,S2), S. S34-S41 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4044828903 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1787217167 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220126134702 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220126||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||