Viewpoint: Why ‘having a public conversation’ about gene editing could hinder advances

[I]t has become clear that [gene editing] technologies aren’t on the far-flung horizon; they’re at our front door. A recent article in the journal Science (full version paywalled) described how gene therapy techniques have already begun improving the lives of those with cancer and heritable genetic diseases, and what needs to happen next.

…

One of the most pressing concerns, and one that is unfortunately not unique to gene therapy and genetic modification technologies, is overcoming the ever-present calls for “having a conversation.” This phenomenon, which is unfortunately all-too-pervasive in the field of technology policy, can best be described thusly: A new technological advancement or scientific discovery will inevitably be met, first and foremost, by a call to have a conversation about its implications.

…

[T]houghtful, practical, and potentially actionable solutions to identifiable problems are no longer given priority treatment. Instead, abstract and non-actionable objectives aimed at achieving “broad societal consensus” or “consideration of the ethical implications” of technologies replace evidentiary analysis and targeted policy recommendations. All that remains in the wake of such calls is the never-ending conversation.

…

While the murky ethical questions of this technology necessitate consideration, we shouldn’t be tying the hands of regulators in developing standards for the safe and effective approval of therapies that could help ease the pain of Americans.

Read full, original post: The coming age of genetics is now coming-of-age