A Chinese scientist’s claims to have created the world’s first genetically edited babies have injected a new sense of urgency into the discussions about ethics, and social and personal responsibility surrounding the capacity to create and genetically modify human embryos.
New technologies such as genome “base editing” have even raised the specter of widespread “embryo farming,” prompting calls for a re-evaluation of how embryo research is regulated.
These issues generate impassioned debate, and to determine right and wrong, the toughest decisions are typically delegated to research ethics committees.
Because these review boards are empowered to rule on the creation, modification and termination of life, their decisionmaking processes should satisfy fundamental criteria of justice, including due process, public input and personal accountability.
However, at the moment this standard is not being met.
In legal theory, justice comprises two components: substantive justice, which concerns a law’s content and the fairness of its application, and natural or procedural justice, which concerns the fairness and transparency of how decisions are made.
In terms of substantive justice, most research ethics protocols are sound; research on human embryos is heavily restricted or banned in most countries.
“Germline” gene editing — genetic alterations of human embryos and gametes that are passed on to future generations — is not sanctioned under international law and the overwhelming majority of countries that have considered legalizing it have eventually rejected the idea.
However, when it comes to natural justice — and in particular, the frameworks guiding decisions — the record is decidedly mixed.
For example, the WHO’s standards for ethics review require only that committees be “independent.”
Given what is at stake, we believe this guidance should go further and that research reviews should be strengthened.
This will require three key reforms. First, bioethics review committees must respect due process standards. At a minimum, this means publicizing agendas in advance and ensuring that deliberations are conducted in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines a “fair” trial as a public hearing conducted by an independent and impartial arbiter.
Moreover, verdicts must be explained clearly, published fully and subject to appeal.
Second, to be legitimate and accountable, the work of research ethics committees must be informed by a diversity of views. Most international frameworks covering embryo research call for engagement with the public to establish a broad societal consensus.
While achieving this level of involvement is not always easy, the legal system has a solution that dates to the early days of Roman law: the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.”
The purpose of the amicus curiae is to improve the quality and legitimacy of the judicial process. To that end, friends of the court — people who are not party to a case, but have an interest in how it is decided — can either submit expert advice or act as a special-interest advocate.
Various national and international courts, including the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, invite public input in the form of amicus curiae briefs.
We propose that a similar process be established for research ethics committees considering work with human embryos.
This would give the public an opportunity to share knowledge, perspectives, and interests related to how decisions might affect individuals and society as a whole, not to mention the human embryos themselves.
An amicus-type brief could be particularly relevant to bioethics cases, given that most review boards are dominated by technical experts and do not always represent public opinion.
Finally, technocratic committees must never supplant societal or personal responsibility for sensitive issues involving life and death; ethical obligations cannot be offloaded so easily.
As the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki says, “the responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician or other healthcare professional and never the research subjects” themselves.
One way to instill individual responsibility would be in the form of a personal declaration.
For example, to ensure transparency, scientific journals require authors to declare conflicts of interest.
Likewise, the EU’s regulations for clinical trials require that research proposals include a discussion of ethical implications.
Why should a scientist proposing research on human embryos — or, for that matter, the funders and publishers of that research — be held to a lower standard?
Moral and ethical liability for science in general, and embryo research in particular, should never be outsourced.
On the contrary, it is a weight that must be borne as transparently, inclusively, and judiciously as possible.
Jasper Bovenberg, an attorney at law, is the founder of Legal Pathways Institute for Health and Bio-Law in the Netherlands. BarthaKnoppers is director of the Center of Genomics and Policy at McGill University in Canada.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS