Recognizing and Legitimizing the Transnational Scientific Governance of Human Gene Editing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique has provoked an international conversation regarding the regulation of human gene editing and the stewardship of humanity’s genetic heritage. In the absence of coherent national regulation, non-legal actors at the transnational level may play a key role in regulating the ethical and biological risks raised by these advancements. However, the transnational governance of biotechnology is poorly understood. To further this understanding, the important role played by scientific organizations in transnational governance of these technologies must be examined in greater detail. While a growing literature has examined transnational governance processes and the role of science in these processes, the role of scientific organizations in the transnational governance of science itself has not yet been characterized in depth. This paper seeks to understand the role of scientific organizations in the global regulation of scientific practice, by examining the role of the host organizations of the International Summit on Human Gene Editing in the regulation of gene editing in humans. This paper argues that the host organizations are in a better position to regulate these technologies than formal legal actors due to the dynamic, transnational, and technical nature of this regulatory task. In addition, this paper examines the inherent legitimacy challenges faced by the host organizations and highlights strengthened discourse between scientific organizations and the public with regards to their policy role as a possible solution. French Abstract: Le developpement de la technique d’edition genetique CRISPR-Cas9 a provoque une conversation internationale sur la reglementation de l’edition des genes humains et la sauvegarde du patrimoine genetique de l’humanite. Dans l’absence de reglementation nationale coherente, les acteurs non juridiques au niveau transnational peuvent jouer un role important dans la reglementation des risques ethiques et biologiques soulevees par ces technologies. Cependant, la gouvernance transnationale de la biotechnologie n’est pas bien comprise. Pour approfondir cette comprehension, le role important joue par des organisations scientifiques dans la gouvernance transnationale de ces technologies doit etre examine. Une litterature croissante examine les processus de gouvernance transnationale et le role de la science dans ces processus, mais le role des organisations scientifiques dans la gouvernance transnationale de la science elle meme n’a pas encore ete caracterise en profondeur. Cet article cherche a comprendre le role des organisations scientifiques dans la reglementation globale de la pratique scientifique en examinant le role des organisations hotes du International Summit on Human Gene Editing dans la reglementation de l’edition des genes humains. Cet article fait valoir que les organisations hotes sont mieux placees pour reglementer ces technologies que les acteurs etatiques en raison de la nature dynamique, transnationale et technique de cette tâche. En outre, cet article examine les defis de legitimite rencontres par les organisations hotes et suggere le renforcement du discours entre les organisations scientifiques et le public concernant leur role juridique comme solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".