Ethical Issues in Genome Editing for Non-Human Organisms Using CRISPR/ Cas9 System

Rodríguez, Eduardo

doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000300

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…above). A further example would be the unauthorized use of genome editing with the help of so called “CRISPR home kits” (Sample, 2016) or an unauthorized form of application by using edited viruses and bacteria as biological weapon in a terrorist attack (Rodriguez, 2017, p. 4). Possible adverse long-term effects of artificial genetic modifications can be attributed to this category as well.…”

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Potential risks for the environment include unintended effects on (non-)target organisms, the ecosystem, or biodiversity (Secretariat of the FAO/WHO Global Forum of Food Safety Regulators, 2005, p. 202). This includes among others off-target effects, the displacement of wild species by their stronger genome edited counterparts and unforeseen consequences of a gene-drive (Rodriguez, 2017, 2). The already established risk categories of known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns and unknown knowns are here applicable as well.…”

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ethical considerations are often referred to in order to oppose genetic modifications of plants. The main concerns articulated are (1) that humankind should not temper with the natural order (naturalness), (2) that the risk potential of genetic engineering cannot be estimated with sufficient certainty and its application is therefore unjustifiable (uncertainty), (3) the danger of corporate control over the food industry and exploitation of farmers via intellectual property rights, and (4) the failure to live up to the responsibility for further generations (Rollin, 2003, p. 15; Weale, 2010, p. 584–87; Rodriguez, 2017, p. 4).…”

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Hamburger

2018

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any legal regulation has to take into account fundamental interests and concerns, whether of private or public nature. This applies in particular to the politically and socially sensitive question of regulating plant biotechnology. With the advent of new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, new challenges are arising for legislators around the world. However, in coping with them not only the technical particularities of the new breeding techniques must be taken into account but also the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of the various stakeholders. In order to be able to draft a suitable regulatory regime for these new techniques, the different interests and concerns at play are identified. Subsequently, a determination is made on how these interests relate to each other, before regulatory concepts to reconcile the conflicting demands are presented. The examined normative criteria, which can have an impact on regulatory decisions regarding genome edited plants and products derived from them, include: industry interests, farmer interests, public opinion, consumer rights and interests, human health and food safety, food security, environmental protection, consistency, and coherence of the regulatory framework and ethical or religious convictions. Since those interests differ from country to country depending on the respective political, economic, and social circumstances, the respective legislator has the task of identifying these normative criteria and must find a suitable balance between them. To this end, a concept is developed on how the different interests can be related to each other and how to deal with conflicting and irreconcilable demands. Additionally, a legislator may have recourse to a number of further analyzed regulatory measures. An approval or notification procedure can be used for a risk assessment or a socio-economic evaluation. Coexistence measures and labeling provisions are able to reconcile interests that are at odds with each other and the precautionary principle can justify certain safeguard measures. As a result, the individual country-specific regulatory outcomes regarding genome edited plants are likely to be as manifold as the interests and regulatory measures at hand.

show abstract

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Normative Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Hamburger

2018

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boudreau [2] authored a review regarding the issues surrounding the concept of universal health care in the USA. Rodriguez [3] has reviewed the ethical considerations of using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in non-human organisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Side issues such as the possibility of inducing mutations, and ecological disruptions created by the engineered organisms upon their release into the environment, and the possibility of xenotransplantation between animals and humans, are some of the key aspects of ethical CRISPR related ethical considerations. Rodriguez [3] has reviewed the ethical considerations of using CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing in non-human organisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%