Exploring the complex relationship between biological innovation, ethical frameworks, and public policy development in an era of rapid scientific advancement.
In a Chinese laboratory in 2018, a scientist named He Jiankui announced he had created the world's first gene-edited babies. Using CRISPR technology, he modified embryos in an attempt to make them resistant to HIV. The global scientific community reacted with uniform horror and condemnation. Dr. He had crossed an ethical boundary that many didn't even realize was so fragile—and he did it without public discussion, policy guidance, or meaningful oversight.
CRISPR, synthetic biology, and AI-integrated neuroscience are transforming our capabilities to manipulate life itself.
Traditional ethical principles struggle to keep pace with rapid scientific advancement and novel moral dilemmas.
This incident represents just one flashpoint at what the article's title calls the "unstable intersection" of biology, ethics, and public policy. Here, groundbreaking biological discoveries with the power to reshape humanity collide with ethical frameworks that struggle to keep pace, while policymakers are often left watching from the sidelines. As we stand at the frontier of unprecedented scientific capabilities—from resurrecting extinct species to engineering our own biology—we must ask: Who gets to decide the limits of science? How do we balance potential benefits against unknown risks? And why does the conversation between those doing the science and those making the rules remain so fragmented?
Recent research reveals a startling disconnect in how biological ethics informs public policy. A 2023 nationwide survey of United States policymakers found that only 12.1% of elected officials had recently interacted with a bioethicist when facing public health challenges. Even among civil service staff who provide family support services, this number was only slightly higher at 14.2%1 .
| Policymaker Category | Recent Interaction with Bioethicist | Desire More Engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Elected Officials | 12.1% | 40.1% |
| Government Managers | 6.6% | 40.0% |
| Civil Service Staff | 14.2% | 47.9% |
The paradox emerges when we examine what happens behind these low engagement numbers. The same study discovered that approximately 40-50% of policymakers actually want more direct engagement with bioethics experts1 . This "unmet desire" for ethical counsel suggests a recognition that complex biological innovations cannot be regulated through political consideration alone.
The hesitation to engage stems from multiple concerns. Some policymakers worry that bioethicists might push a political agenda rather than share practical information. Others struggle to access relevant, reliable, and timely expertise in a format that fits the rapid pace of policy decision-making1 .
While local and state policymakers report limited engagement with bioethicists, the situation at the federal level has taken concerning turns. In 2025, the Trump administration dismissed experts and patient advocates from dozens of committees, including the disbandment of NExTRAC (the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee)2 .
Establishment of Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) to oversee genetic engineering milestones.
He Jiankui announces creation of first gene-edited babies using CRISPR technology.
Trump administration disbands NExTRAC committee despite its recent work on increasing community engagement in NIH-funded science.
This committee had been established to tackle exactly the kinds of ethical quandaries that emerging biological technologies present. It continued the work of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), which had overseen genetic engineering milestones since the mid-1970s, including the development of synthetic insulin and the early days of gene therapy2 .
Critical for providing ethical oversight of emerging biotechnologies
Essential for rebuilding public trust in clinical research
One baffling aspect of NExTRAC's termination was that it came just after the committee had presented a roadmap to increase community engagement in NIH-funded science—a priority that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya had previously praised as essential for "rebuilding public trust in clinical research"2 . The dissolution of such committees leaves critical gaps in how—or whether—open conversations about scientific and ethical issues involving novel biotechnologies will occur at the highest levels of scientific governance.
To understand the disconnect between bioethicists and policymakers, researchers conducted three nationwide surveys of U.S. policymakers from September 15 to November 2, 20231 . The study employed rigorous methodology:
The survey revealed several telling patterns about how policymakers view and value bioethical guidance:
The results also revealed partisan differences, with Democrats in each sample expressing more unmet desire for bioethics engagement than Republicans1 . This political dimension adds complexity to efforts to increase ethical guidance in policymaking.
Bioethics as a field has developed several frameworks for approaching biological dilemmas, with "principlism" being one of the most influential. This approach emphasizes four key principles:
Respecting an individual's right to make their own decisions
The obligation to act for the benefit of others
The duty to avoid causing harm
Ensuring fair distribution of benefits and burdens
These principles regularly collide with biological innovations. For instance, the autonomy of parents to choose genetic enhancements for their children might conflict with justice concerns about creating a society of genetic "haves" and "have-nots." Similarly, the potential beneficence of developing dangerous pathogens for research must be balanced against non-maleficence considerations about accidental release or deliberate misuse.
Bioethics is experiencing what scholars have termed an "empirical turn"—a growing recognition that ethical frameworks must be informed by real-world data and public perspectives9 . This has led to increased interest in analyzing media debates as a way to understand how biological ethics intersects with politics, society, and healthcare9 .
Systematic analysis of media discussions reveals how the public understands and deliberates complex biological issues—from gene editing to end-of-life decisions—providing crucial context for developing ethical guidelines that reflect societal values rather than just expert opinions9 .
Just as biological research requires specific tools and reagents, effective work at the biology-ethics-policy intersection demands its own specialized toolkit.
Tools for mapping the policy landscape, identifying key decision points, and understanding legislative processes.
Structured approaches for including diverse perspectives, particularly from marginalized communities.
Connections across biology, ethics, law, social sciences, and policy sectors.
Processes for providing timely ethical input on emerging biological developments before policy windows close.
The unstable intersection of biology, ethics, and policy demands intentional strategies for creating more robust connections. Several approaches show promise:
The 2025 Postgraduate Bioethics Conference highlights "Disruption in Bioethics" as its theme, encouraging methodological innovation and amplification of voices beyond the Global North and Western-centric frameworks5 . This includes exploring intersections between bioethical research, culture, and the arts, and developing "disruptive theories" that radically reframe established bioethical principles5 .
Bioethicists and scientists need to translate complex concepts for broad audiences. Effective science writing for the public requires:
The unstable intersection of biology, ethics, and public policy represents both a profound challenge and a remarkable opportunity. As biological capabilities accelerate—from CRISPR gene editing to synthetic biology and artificial intelligence integrated with human brains—the stakes have never been higher.
The conversation between science and society cannot be an afterthought or a crisis response. It must become embedded in how we govern emerging technologies from their earliest development.
This requires bioethicists who can engage practically with real-world constraints, policymakers who recognize the value of ethical foresight, and scientists who understand the social dimensions of their work.
Perhaps most importantly, it requires an engaged public that can participate knowledgeably in decisions about what biological futures we pursue and which we decline. The unstable intersection will likely remain unstable—the pace of biological discovery ensures that. But through deliberate engagement, clear communication, and shared commitment to ethical governance, we can build better mechanisms for navigating the turbulence together.
The alternative—allowing biological capabilities to evolve without ethical guidance or democratic oversight—is a path that leads to the very future Dr. He Jiankui attempted to create: one where a few individuals make world-changing decisions for all of humanity, without the wisdom of collective deliberation.
At the unstable intersection of biology, ethics, and policy, our choice is not between change and stasis, but between intentional evolution and accidental revolution.
References will be added here manually.