You are currently viewing the summary.
View Full TextLog in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
More options
Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
Summary
The end of malaria. Restored island habitats. Resiliency for species threatened by climate change. Many envisioned environmental applications of newly developed gene-editing techniques such as CRISPR might provide profound benefits for ecosystems and society. But depending on the type and scale of the edit, gene-edited organisms intentionally released into the environment could also deliver off-target mutations, evolutionary resistance, ecological disturbance, and extinctions. Hence, there are ongoing conversations about the responsible application of CRISPR, especially relative to the limitations of current global governance structures to safeguard its use [(1, 2); see table S1]. Largely missing from these conversations is attention to local communities in decision-making. Most policy discussions are instead occurring at the national or international level (3, 4), even though local communities will be the first to feel the context-dependent impacts of any release. To be fully representative, therefore, local inputs and perspectives must also be considered. As laboratories around the world develop and perfect gene-editing techniques with unprecedented capacity to alter wild species and, by extension, the ecological and cultural systems of which they are a part, we outline our vision for locally based, globally informed governance.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
