SDSSB Comments 6 - Governance and Regulation

The 1975 Asilomar conference was presented in the unique press narration, entertaining and satire, in the popular Rolling Stones magazine. The conference aims to come up with an agreed regulation on the new disruptive technology. The emerging recombinant DNA technology was predicted, and has been proofed, to have great impact on today’s biotechnology, with risks that is also considerable. Michael Rogers, a press, told the story of the congress somewhat like a group of nerds discussing about the end of the world in an isolated conference. What shocked me though, was the response in page 39: “But what about the press?” (Rogers, 1975). Its as if the scientist and the public was from a diferent species.

Hurlbut et al., (2015) reflects on the 1975 Asilomar Conference to critics the upcoming NAS-NAM plan to CRISPR, the disruptive gene-editing technology, for its ethical, legal, and social implication. Hurlbut argues that the Asilomar conference is an example where an important regulation on a disruptive technology does not involves the opinion of public. Thus, the governance of gene editing technology, and the NAS-NAM plan, should be more democratic. In order to achieve that, the discussion should take note four themes: Envisioning futures, distribution, trust, and provisionality (page 3).

I agree that science policy should involve the wider public, because we all have rights and would be affected by the impact of the technology. Scientist could be depicted as arrogant, paranoid, and enclosed in his “research world”. But I think the science culture from Asilomar 1975 and today’s academia has changed. The interdisciplinarity of today’s academic have brought critical minds to address new technologies and challenges. Good education has given scientific literacy to the public, which is a keypoint for public contribution in the policy making. To  govern a technology with considerable uncertainty in both applications and implications, a thorough discussion between politician, scientist, and public should be well designed. Decision should be made through thorough analysis by world leaders, with the expertise of scientist and taken account the public opinion.