This content will become publicly available on December 2, 2025
More Like this
-
The Table S1-S6 are curated breakout notes from the NSF-funded FUTURE 2024 Workshop (March 26-28, 2024). During the workshop, the first day of discussions focused on “Critical science questions that require seafloor sampling,” where participants: (I) defined the important sample types/sampling environment of their research; (II) assessed how well this seafloor environment is currently sampled; (III) reviewed how sample repositories/databases are currently used; and, (IV) evaluated justifications for acquiring new samples. Each breakout session culminated with a discussion of (V) what important science questions could be addressed soon (5–10 years), with existing or forthcoming assets and technologies, versus (VI) what might take longer (10+ years) and/or require the development of new assets or technologies. These motivating topics fed into the second day of discussions, which focused on “Aligning seafloor sampling technology with critical science questions.” Groups were guided by a common set of prompts, including what current resources were essential to the participants’ research, and what were the greatest challenges they faced in recovering the materials needed. The participants also discussed whether they could acquire the materials needed to address their science questions given current US assets (Figure 1 in FUTURE 2024 PI-team, 2024, AGU Advances 2024AV001560), how sample repositories and databases could be optimized for science needs, and the justification for acquiring or developing new technologies.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Background Forward-looking, democratically oriented governance is needed to ensure that human genome editing serves rather than undercuts public values. Scientific, policy, and ethics communities have recognized this necessity but have demonstrated limited understanding of how to fulfill it. The field of bioethics has long attempted to grapple with the unintended consequences of emerging technologies, but too often such foresight has lacked adequate scientific grounding, overemphasized regulation to the exclusion of examining underlying values, and failed to adequately engage the public.
Methods This research investigates the application of scenario planning, a tool developed in the high-stakes, uncertainty-ridden world of corporate strategy, for the equally high-stakes and uncertain world of the governance of emerging technologies. The scenario planning methodology is non-predictive, looking instead at a spread of plausible futures which diverge in their implications for different communities’ needs, cares, and desires.
Results In this article we share how the scenario development process can further understandings of the complex and dynamic systems which generate and shape new biomedical technologies and provide opportunities to re-examine and re-think questions of governance, ethics and values. We detail the results of a year-long scenario planning study that engaged experts from the biological sciences, bioethics, social sciences, law, policy, private industry, and civic organizations to articulate alternative futures of human genome editing.
Conclusions Through sharing and critiquing our methodological approach and results of this study, we advance understandings of anticipatory methods deployed in bioethics, demonstrating how this approach provides unique insights and helps to derive better research questions and policy strategies.
-
Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled --- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables; namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals --- a forward-looking rather than retrospective counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results.more » « less
