IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i6p788-798..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promissory ethical regimes: publics and public goods in genome editing for human health
[Genome Editing in Human Cells – An Initial Statement]

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Wienroth
  • Jackie Leach Scully

Abstract

This paper analyses promissory discourse for genome editing and human health in the UK, attending to the articulation of public goods and their beneficiary publics. Focusing on promissory reasoning about an emerging technology field as anticipatory and ethical considerations as integral to such debates, the notion of ethical regime as a mode of governance is applied to the concept of promissory regime. By analyzing key documents and interviews with opinion leaders—thus focusing on the discursive dimension—an enabling promissory ethical regime for genome editing and its contestation are identified. This regime posits scientific knowledge production now, and improved treatment or prevention of hereditary diseases later, as key goods of genome editing for human health and as a sociotechnical project worthy of support. Specific publics are created as beneficiaries. These publics and goods play out as ethical rationales for the promissory governance of the emerging field of human genome editing.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Wienroth & Jackie Leach Scully, 2021. "Promissory ethical regimes: publics and public goods in genome editing for human health [Genome Editing in Human Cells – An Initial Statement]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 788-798.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:6:p:788-798.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scab052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benny Haerlin & Doug Parr, 1999. "How to restore public trust in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6744), pages 499-499, August.
    2. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cardillo, Concetta & Cimino, Orlando & Henke, Roberto & Vanni, Francesco, 2012. "Delivering public goods in agriculture: the cost of green payments for Italian farms," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 126139, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    3. Benoit Mougenot & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin, 2022. "Conceptual evolution of the bioeconomy: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1031-1047, January.
    4. Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2018. "Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 684-684, August.
    5. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, 2022. "Is the readability of abstracts decreasing in management research?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1063-1084, May.
    6. Asada, Raphael & Stern, Tobias, 2018. "Competitive Bioeconomy? Comparing Bio-based and Non-bio-based Primary Sectors of the World," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 120-128.
    7. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    8. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Societal Perspectives on a Bio‐economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(01), January.
    10. Josh Bullock & Justin E. Lane & F. LeRon Shults, 2022. "What causes COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy? Ignorance and the lack of bliss in the United Kingdom," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    11. Lovrić, Marko & Lovrić, Nataša & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    12. Ehrenfeld, Wilfried & Kropfhäußer, Frieder, 2014. "Plant-based Bioeconomy in Central Germany - Mapping of Actors, Industries and Places," IWH Discussion Papers 7/2014, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), revised 2014.
    13. Lipić, Tomislav & Štajduhar, Andrija & Medvidović, Luka & Wild, Dorian & Korošak, Dean & Podobnik, Boris, 2022. "Stringency without efficiency is not adequate to combat pandemics," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    14. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Lovrić, Nataša & Lovrić, Marko & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Factors behind development of innovations in European forest-based bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Lees, Nic & Nuthall, Peter & Wilson, Mark M.J., 2020. "Relationship quality and supplier performance in food supply chains," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(3), August.
    17. Jelena Djordjevic Boljanovic & Gordana Dobrijevic & Slobodan Cerovic & Slavko Alcakovic & Filip Djokovic, 2018. "Knowledge-Based Bioeconomy: The Use of Intellectual Capital in Food Industry of Serbia," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 717-717, August.
    18. Sotiropoulou, Irene & Deutz, Pauline, 2021. "Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(4), December.
    19. Esposti, Roberto, 2012. "Knowledge, Technology and Innovations for a Bio-based Economy: Lessons from the Past, Challenges for the Future," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(3), pages 1-34, December.
    20. Dragomir, Vili & Rodino, Steliana, 2022. "Agriculture Economy and Rural Development - Trends and Challenges," MPRA Paper 118467, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2023.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:6:p:788-798.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.