Annals of Health Law - Volume 26 Issue 2

policy debate.150

The Report offers a detailed look at public participation—theory, existing practice, and possibilities in the CRISPR context.151 The Report ultimately proposes a strong public participation model, to be developed. Recommendation 7-1 states: “Extensive and inclusive public participation should precede clinical trials for any extension of human genome editing beyond treatment or prevention of disease or disability.”152

V. REINVENTING THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Can we do better than using the National Institutes? The NAM Report is
a thorough and well documented look at a worrisome aspect of the CRISPR
tool, with other reports to follow. The authors are a well-respected and
diverse group. I argue, however, that we need a standing agency that ( 1)
promotes strong versions of public engagement in its design, ( 2) has an
institutional memory, and ( 3) a staff familiar with a wide range of technology
assessment problems would be preferable.

I propose that we reconstitute a new and improved Federal Office of Technology Assessment to provide a coherent framework for evaluating the risks of technologies like CRISPR in all of its possible applications.153 The original Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) issued a wide range of valuable reports to assist Congress in evaluating thorny issues, but in 1995 it was closed.154 Congress can now use the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office in the absence of the now defunct OTA, but these offices do not provide the detail that is needed for difficult technological assessments, the depth of research, or the range that scientific uncertainty requires.155 As Sclove writes: “Congress is indeed awash in information and analysis, including scientific and technical analysis, but lacks a trustworthy mechanism for evaluating, distilling and synthesizing this information.”156

Adding another regulatory body to the world of U.S. government regulation will be met with political opposition. On the other hand, the model

150. Id. at 123.

151. Id. at 127-29, 130-31, 134.

152. Id. at 136.

153. Jathan Sadowski, The Much-Needed and Same Congressional Office that Gingrich Killed Off and We Need Back, THE ATLANTIC (Oct. 26, 2012),

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-much-needed-and-sane- congressional-office-that-gingrich-killed-off-and-we-need-back/264160/; see generally RICHARD SCLOVE, WOODROW WILSON INT’L CTR. FOR SCHOLARS, REINVENTING TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A 21ST CENTURY MODEL, (April 2010) (proposing an improved model of the Office of Technology Assessment).