Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36476040›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2023

Public Engagement through Inclusive Deliberation: The Human Genome International Commission and Citizens' Juries.

Naomi Scheinerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Naomi ScheinermanUniversity of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-2027-8045

Funding

The Penn Postdoctoral Training Program in the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Genetics and GenomicsT32HG009496 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Steven Joffe · 2017 to 2026
$3.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG009496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, I take seriously calls for public engagement in human genome editing decision-making by endorsing the convening of a "Citizens Jury" in conjunction with the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing's next summit scheduled for March 6-8, 2023. This institutional modification promises a more inclusive, deliberative, and impactful form of engagement than standard bioethics engagement opportunities, such as comment periods, by serving both normative and political purposes in the quest to offer moral guidance on gene editing. In examining evidence from the Australian Citizens' Jury on Genome Editing convened in 2021, I argue that Citizens' Juries should work in tandem with governing institutions to preserve the role of expertise while ensuring that the diverse views of the public are incorporated into their final reports as well. First, early inclusivity allows "the people" to hold agenda setting power through helping to set resource priorities. This also makes a downstream deliberative event, such as the called for Global Citizens' Assembly, both more likely to occur and more influential on policy. Second, Jury's diverse composition promises substantive contributions to the Commission's work. Third, Citizens' Juries could help to cultivate the Commission's trustworthiness.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationGenome, HumanAustraliaDecision MakingHealth PolicyHumansdemocratic deliberationexpertisegermline editingHuman genome editingpublic engagementsocietal engagementtrust

Identifiers

PMID36476040
PMCPMC10244483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.