Table 1 Key considerations for future regulation
From: Identifying Māori perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand
Precautionary Component | Addressing/Incorporating: |
|---|---|
Culture | The tikanga perspective, relative to the scientific, economic and mainstream cultures – managing cultural conflicts, identifying ambiguities, clarifying common and disparate objectives. What are the range of potential benefits and risks? |
Context | What makes one genomic project or approach more ‘valid’ than another? Why is a particular project relevant/critical/etc. at a given point in time? Why (or why not) would gene technologies be considered? |
Consequence | Identification of a continuum of reasonably anticipated outcomes (for monitoring). How to accommodate (or ‘predict’) unpredictable outcomes? What outcomes are/are not acceptable? |
Certainty | From the kaitiakitanga perspective – what values are employed in determining how to quantify/qualify outcomes? What uncertainties exist? What information is required to provide confidence in decision-making? |
Control | Who makes what decisions, when? Across-time responsive decision-making should replace initial-stage, ‘consultation’-based project sign-off. How are different values balanced/mediated? |
Cost | What level of investment is required to integrate gene-related technologies into business operations and where to go to find this out? |
Capacity & Capability | Community-level capability enables ‘authority’ in decision-making and offsets confidence issues around ‘legitimacy of science’. Requirement for ‘community’ time and expertise to attract same funding as ‘government’, leading to improved capacity and consolidation of capability. |
Compromise | Acknowledgement of the dynamic nature of decision-making and the lack of certainty about the consequences of gene editing. What non-genomic alternatives exist? |
