Paper short abstract:

This study explores how stakeholders envision the future of epigenetic editing, using semi-structured interviews. Our analysis show that the majority of respondents acknowledge many uncertainties and complexities of epigenetic editing, arguing for cautiousness in the way the field moves forward.

Paper long abstract:

Within the emerging field of epigenetic editing, many scientists (from academia and industry) seem to share the view that new epigenetic editing technologies (such as CRISPR/dCas9) open up a window of opportunity to change the expression of genes by editing the epigenome, without modifying the genomic sequence. In the future this may lead to new ways of curing diseases or new ways to improve crop traits. The promise of epigenetic editing is that it is more specific, more transient, reversible, and controllable than conventional gene editing technologies. Moreover, because no permanent insertions or deletions are made in the DNA sequence, it is perceived as “milder”, safer and more acceptable to the public.

We examined how involved stakeholders (scientists, industry) imagine the future of epigenetic editing by conducting semi-structured interviews. Contrasting the views on epigenetic editing as milder and safer than genetic editing, we find that many respondents acknowledge many uncertainties and complexities of epigenetic editing, because of the complexity of genome regulation, and the limitations of the currently available knowledge as the field is still in its infancy.

The majority of respondents foresee a role for epigenetic editing in medicine but simultaneously warn that we need to move forwards cautiously. We will give an overview of different sociotechnical imaginaries for epigenetic editing and will analyze their underlying assumptions and normative and descriptive dimensions.