I said maybe because I believe there should be a global agreement on the use of gene editing technologies due to gene editing having many risks and could be misused. If a global agreement is set then …Read MoreI said maybe because I believe there should be a global agreement on the use of gene editing technologies due to gene editing having many risks and could be misused. If a global agreement is set then boundaries would be set and prevent dangerous and unethical applications. On the other hand, negotiating and enforcing a global agreement could take several years. In the meantime, scientific progress could be delayed, especially in areas where gene editing could offer urgent medical or environment solutions. Also, countries across the globe have very different ethical, cultural, and political views which brings the question, what is acceptable to write in this agreement, which editing embryos might be off the table, resulting in a weak watered down agreement. Overall, I am unsure what we can do about this agreement, but I do think it should be thought about.Read Less
I don’t think a global agreement on gene editing is necessary. Countries are capable of regulating it independently. Since gene editing is closely tied to ethics, which vary widely across cultures, …Read MoreI don’t think a global agreement on gene editing is necessary. Countries are capable of regulating it independently. Since gene editing is closely tied to ethics, which vary widely across cultures, I doubt that a single international framework could be effective. Each country should craft regulations that reflect its own values and societal norms.
One of the strongest arguments for global regulation is that, without it, scientists may relocate to countries with weaker restrictions, undermining national efforts. While this concern is valid, any so-called “global consensus” is likely to be ignored when it conflicts with a country’s ethical standards or political priorities. For example, there has been broad international agreement on internet censorship and privacy in various UN resolutions. Although both China and the United States did not block these resolutions, they have taken dramatically different approaches. China emphasizes state control and surveillance, while the United States tends to prioritize corporate freedom and individual privacy. Even in the face of global consensus, national values continue to shape regulatory outcomes. Read Less
I said maybe because I believe there should be a global agreement on the use of gene editing technologies due to gene editing having many risks and could be misused. If a global agreement is set then …Read MoreI said maybe because I believe there should be a global agreement on the use of gene editing technologies due to gene editing having many risks and could be misused. If a global agreement is set then boundaries would be set and prevent dangerous and unethical applications. On the other hand, negotiating and enforcing a global agreement could take several years. In the meantime, scientific progress could be delayed, especially in areas where gene editing could offer urgent medical or environment solutions. Also, countries across the globe have very different ethical, cultural, and political views which brings the question, what is acceptable to write in this agreement, which editing embryos might be off the table, resulting in a weak watered down agreement. Overall, I am unsure what we can do about this agreement, but I do think it should be thought about. Read Less
Don’t know enough on gene editing to have much of an opinion
I don’t think a global agreement on gene editing is necessary. Countries are capable of regulating it independently. Since gene editing is closely tied to ethics, which vary widely across cultures, …Read MoreI don’t think a global agreement on gene editing is necessary. Countries are capable of regulating it independently. Since gene editing is closely tied to ethics, which vary widely across cultures, I doubt that a single international framework could be effective. Each country should craft regulations that reflect its own values and societal norms.
One of the strongest arguments for global regulation is that, without it, scientists may relocate to countries with weaker restrictions, undermining national efforts. While this concern is valid, any so-called “global consensus” is likely to be ignored when it conflicts with a country’s ethical standards or political priorities. For example, there has been broad international agreement on internet censorship and privacy in various UN resolutions. Although both China and the United States did not block these resolutions, they have taken dramatically different approaches. China emphasizes state control and surveillance, while the United States tends to prioritize corporate freedom and individual privacy. Even in the face of global consensus, national values continue to shape regulatory outcomes. Read Less
I agree. Even if there were a global agreement on restrictions for gene editing technologies, it would be very hard to enforce.