Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science.
gene drives
public engagement
science communication
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 04 2019
16 04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
16
1
2019
medline:
9
4
2020
entrez:
16
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In November of 2017, an interdisciplinary panel discussed the complexities of gene drive applications as part of the third Sackler Colloquium on "The Science of Science Communication." The panel brought together a social scientist, life scientist, and journalist to discuss the issue from each of their unique perspectives. This paper builds on the ideas and conversations from the session to provide a more nuanced discussion about the context surrounding responsible communication and decision-making for cases of post-normal science. Deciding to use gene drives to control and suppress pests will involve more than a technical assessment of the risks involved, and responsible decision-making regarding their use will require concerted efforts from multiple actors. We provide a review of gene drives and their potential applications, as well as the role of journalists in communicating the extent of uncertainties around specific projects. We also discuss the roles of public opinion and online environments in public engagement with scientific processes. We conclude with specific recommendations about how to address current challenges and foster more effective communication and decision-making for complex, post-normal issues, such as gene drives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30642954
pii: 1805874115
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805874115
pmc: PMC6475393
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7692-7697Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI139085
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
J Theor Biol. 2001 Sep 7;212(1):83-98
pubmed: 11527447
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 May 7;270(1518):921-8
pubmed: 12803906
Science. 1960 Dec 23;132(3443):1887-9
pubmed: 13696189
Annu Rev Entomol. 2004;49:193-217
pubmed: 14651462
Genetics. 2006 Apr;172(4):2613-20
pubmed: 16415364
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Sep;79(3):312-8
pubmed: 18784220
Trends Parasitol. 2010 Jun;26(6):279-83
pubmed: 20299285
Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98
pubmed: 2270237
Curr Biol. 2013 Apr 22;23(8):671-7
pubmed: 23541732
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3:14040-7
pubmed: 23940341
PLoS One. 2014 May 20;9(5):e97557
pubmed: 24844466
Elife. 2014 Jul 17;3:
pubmed: 25035423
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 10;114(2):E255-E264
pubmed: 28028208
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 8;7(1):11038
pubmed: 28887462
PLoS Genet. 2017 Oct 4;13(10):e1007039
pubmed: 28976972
PLoS Biol. 2017 Nov 16;15(11):e2003850
pubmed: 29145398
ACS Synth Biol. 2018 May 18;7(5):1359-1370
pubmed: 29608276
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 May 22;115(21):5522-5527
pubmed: 29735716
Sci Adv. 2018 May 16;4(5):eaar2133
pubmed: 29774233
Annu Rev Nutr. 2018 Aug 21;38:459-479
pubmed: 29801421
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Jun;98(6_Suppl):1-49
pubmed: 29882508
Nature. 1986 Oct 9-15;323(6088):495-6
pubmed: 3762704