The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement:
            Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild

S. Kathleen Barnhill‐Dilling; Adam Kokotovich; Jason A. Delborne

doi:10.1002/hast.1320

The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild

The Hastings Center Report ◽

10.1002/hast.1320 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 51 (S2) ◽

Author(s):

S. Kathleen Barnhill‐Dilling ◽

Adam Kokotovich ◽

Jason A. Delborne

Keyword(s):

Public Engagement ◽

Gene Editing ◽

In The Wild

Download Full-text

Gene Editing in the Wild: Who Decides—and How?

BioScience ◽

10.1093/biosci/biz009 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 69 (4) ◽

pp. 316-316

Author(s):

Niki Wilson

Keyword(s):

Gene Editing ◽

In The Wild

Download Full-text

Engaging the Public at a Science Festival

Science Communication ◽

10.1177/1075547017697981 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. 250-277 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Kathleen M. Rose ◽

Kaine Korzekwa ◽

Dominique Brossard ◽

Dietram A. Scheufele ◽

Laura Heisler

Keyword(s):

Public Engagement ◽

Gene Editing ◽

Human Gene ◽

The Public ◽

Scientific Issue ◽

Public Engagement With Science ◽

Risk And Benefit ◽

Science Activities

Theoretically and methodologically sound research on the reach and impact of public engagement practices continues to lag behind. Using the 2015 Wisconsin Science Festival as context, we empirically investigate the impacts of a public engagement activity about a nascent and controversial scientific issue, human gene editing. Overall, we find the panel increased participants’ understanding of the complexities of human gene editing, as demonstrated by increases in knowledge and the moral acceptability of the technology among respondents, as well as the associated risk and benefit perceptions. Practical and theoretical implications for science festivals and public engagement with science activities are discussed.

Download Full-text

Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology

10.1101/173914 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

John M. Marshall ◽

Omar S. Akbari

Keyword(s):

Population Biology ◽

Gene Editing ◽

Gene Drive ◽

In The Wild ◽

Drive Systems ◽

Chain Drives

AbstractThe recent discovery of CRISPR and its application as a gene editing tool has enabled a range of gene drive systems to be engineered with much greater ease. In order for the benefits of this technology to be realized, drive systems must be developed that are capable of both spreading into populations to achieve their desired impact, and being recalled in the event of unwanted consequences or public disfavor. We review the performance of three broad categories of drive systems at achieving these goals - threshold-dependent drives, homing-based drive and remediation systems, and temporally self-limiting systems such as daisy-chain drives.

Download Full-text

What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.2004835117 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 118 (22) ◽

pp. e2004835117

Author(s):

Dietram A. Scheufele ◽

Nicole M. Krause ◽

Isabelle Freiling ◽

Dominique Brossard

Keyword(s):

Public Engagement ◽

Scientific Community ◽

Gene Editing ◽

New Technologies ◽

Close Attention ◽

Social Scientists ◽

The World ◽

Common Goals ◽

Social Scientific ◽

Modes Of Engagement

Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.

Download Full-text