User:Iris Perigaud Grünfeld/sandbox

International interdisciplinary observatory for gene editing
“Genome editing (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism's DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome.”

During this International Interdisciplinary Observatory on Gene Editing, it is important to bring together scientific disciplines and ethical ones. In fact, scientists working in genetic engineering will explain the scientific advances in gene editing and it is essential. We will also need to talk about technologies as the "use of the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 [...] has opened up new frontiers in genetic medicine". At the same time, disciplines like philosophy, bioethics and law are necessary because they raise awareness on the consequences of gene editing on the society and question the power of science.

However, bringing together science and humanities could seem difficult because they approach truth and knowledge differently. “Discussion split into two camps: scientific experts explor[e] technical issues, whereas scholars who study science and society [address] questions about the possible disruption to social norms.” On one hand, science relies on facts. Thus, truth is mainly seen as empirical and positive: scientists make measurements, observe them and draw conclusions. On the other hand, the humanities fields, such as bioethics and law, truth is discussed as normative: this means that values are a key point and that they focus on how a phenomenon will affect people and its consequences over the society.

Thus, how could science and humanities work together in a dynamic way? First, there should have a discussion in which they (researchers in science and in humanities) express their ideas and researches, in an understandable language for the others -explanation of technical vocabulary for example. Scientists could argue that gene editing helps to understand genetic diseases and could treat them. It can also improve the yield of crops and have an impact on livestock. The researchers working in bioethics could express their apprehension regarding gene editing and its consequences on society and future. Indeed, if scientists were allowed to alter reproductive cells, it could lead to eugenics because parents could choose their children and embryo judged as abnormal in the society could be eliminated.

Then, they need to understand that they are complementary. “It makes little sense to treat the questions raised by genome editing as if they belonged to a single field […]. [It] should be addressed as part of different technology convergences […] which also includes political technologies (regulation, legislation, etc.)”.

In order to work together, they need to agree on the issue(s) that gene editing raises and need to have a “conversation about the limits and directions of research”. In conclusion, despite the difference of truths, dialogue and cooperation can help to work together and find a solution.