Suchergebnisse

Public participation, transparency and accountability are three of the pillars of good governance. These pillars become particularly important for innovative, personalised health technologies, because of the tendency of these technologies to raise distinct scientific, ethical, legal and social issues. Genome editing is perhaps the most personal of all innovative health technologies, involving precise modifications to an individual's genome. This article focuses on the adequacy of current requirements for public participation, transparency and accountability in the governance of the market authorisation for genome edited products. Although clinical trials for genome edited products are only just underway, lessons can be drawn from the marketing approvals pathways for related gene therapy products. This article provides a broad overview of the regulatory pathways that have been adopted by the US Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Authority, and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for reviewing gene therapy products for marketing approval. This analysis focuses on the extent to which public participation processes and transparency and accountability of review pathways are incorporated into marketing approval policy and practice. Following this review, the article proposes the application of Sheila Jasanoff's "technologies of humility" as a foundation for meaningfully incorporating these pillars of good governance into regulatory processes for the review of products of genome editing. We conclude by articulating clear mechanisms for operationalising technologies of humility in the context of public participation, transparency and accountability, providing a blueprint for future policy development.

This research identifies the circumstances in which Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are trusted by Australians to approve the use of genomic data – without express consent – and considers the impact of genomic data sharing settings, and respondent attributes, on public trust. Survey results ( N = 3013) show some circumstances are more conducive to public trust than others, with waivers endorsed when future research is beneficial and when privacy is protected, but receiving less support in other instances. Still, results imply attitudes are influenced by more than these specific circumstances, with different data sharing settings, and participant attributes, affecting views. Ultimately, this research raises questions and concerns in relation to the criteria HRECs use when authorising waivers of consent in Australia.

Sharing of genomic and associated data is essential to clinical practice and biomedical research, and is increasingly encouraged by journals and funding bodies. Grappling with the range of legal and ethical issues raised by genomic data sharing presents a significant challenge, given the diversity of practices: from defined sharing of individual patient data, to broad-scale public sharing of research data, to uploading of direct-to-consumer test data by community members. Most commentary to date has discussed these issues in broad terms, but the debate can only progress if we engage with more granularity, grounded in jurisdictional and contextual specifics. We developed an empirical approach, creating a set of prototypical scenarios that capture the diversity of current genomic data sharing practices, which allows legal and ethical analysis of key issues at a granular level. The specificity of this approach provides a strong foundation for developing useful and relevant regulatory recommendations.