CRISPR, APGAR and Cancer Screening: Public Engagement, Controversy and Misaligned Values

2026/07/23 by Stephen John

paper · doi:10.1111/bioe.70158

Abstract

ABSTRACT There are many calls for public engagement in decision‐making around controversial technologies, but far fewer calls for public engagement in deliberation around less controversial interventions. We think the public should be involved in discussing CRISPR, but not in discussing APGAR. Drawing on the case of debates over cancer screening, this paper argues we have things the wrong way around. Given the complex entanglement of fact and value, it is very hard to have high‐quality public deliberation over novel technologies. By contrast, it is easier to have deliberation over more mundane technologies. There is, then, good reason to think we should engage in more public deliberation over mundane technologies. The results of this deliberation can then be used in more high‐profile cases.

Citations

• Reassessing onco-exceptionalism: equity and resource allocation in immunotherapeutic cancer treatments
• Incommensurability and democratic deliberation in bioethics
• Introduction to the Special Issue From Mini-publics to Mass Publics
• Science Advice in an Environment of Trust: Trusted, but Not Trustworthy?
• Does democracy require value-neutral science? Analyzing the legitimacy of scientific information in the political sphere
• Sex Drugs and Corporate Ventriloquism: How to Evaluate Science Policies Intended to Manage Industry-Funded Bias
• Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science

Related

• Innovation and Interdependence: Evidence from Gene-Editing Technology
• Limits of Responsibility: <i>Genome Editing, Asilomar, and the Politics of Deliberation</i>
• Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance
• The Impact of Narratives on the Legal and Regulatory Discourse of Heritable Human Genome Editing
• Fair priority setting in gene-editing research: the accountability for reasonableness framework