CRISPR Ethics IQ: 5 scenarios, 1 point each. 5/5 = strongly aligned with expert guidance, 3-4/5 = mostly aligned, 0-2/5 = closer review, and this is not a measure of your actual ethics or expertise.

Q1. A lab wants to edit a patient sample before its review board meets. What choice best matches expert guidance on consent and oversight?
- Require rigorous prior assessment of risks and benefits and obtain appropriate informed consent before proceeding.
- Start the procedure first and explain it once the results are available.
- Skip consent if the edit might help the patient.
- Let the research team decide case by case without formal review.
Answer: Require rigorous prior assessment of risks and benefits and obtain appropriate informed consent before proceeding[[cite:1]][[cite:2]].
Q2. A clinic wants to use heritable genome editing in reproduction right away because the method is technically possible. Which response is most aligned with expert guidance?
- Move forward now because reproduction-related editing is already broadly endorsed.
- Pause until much more research is done and a broad societal debate shapes governance around the welfare of the future person and preventing social injustice.
- Use it as long as the parents agree.
- Proceed only in one country to avoid debate.
Answer: Pause until much more research is done and a broad societal debate shapes governance around the welfare of the future person and preventing social injustice[[cite:3]][[cite:4]][[cite:5]][[cite:6]].
Q3. A public agency plans a CRISPR program and says it will ask communities for input after the rollout. What is the better expert-aligned move?
- Build participatory engagement early so communities, including vulnerable groups, help co-create and implement policy transparently.
- Keep the policy internal because public discussion slows science.
- Share the plan only with investors and clinicians.
- Engage the public only if there is an adverse event.
Answer: Build participatory engagement early so communities, including vulnerable groups, help co-create and implement policy transparently[[cite:7]][[cite:8]].
Q4. A team wants to release a gene-drive mosquito into the wild as soon as the lab data look promising. Which option best matches governance guidance?
- Skip confined trials and release broadly once the lab data look promising.
- Start with early, ongoing community engagement, credible independent risk assessment, and confined field trials regulated by the country where they occur.
- Release first in multiple countries to compare results.
- Leave oversight to the device developers only.
Answer: Start with early, ongoing community engagement, credible independent risk assessment, and confined field trials regulated by the country where they occur[[cite:9]][[cite:10]][[cite:11]][[cite:12]].
Q5. A ministry plans a CRISPR service only for wealthy urban clinics and says expansion can wait. What response best matches expert guidance on equity and access?
- Plan for equitable, sustainable, context-appropriate implementation so benefits are not limited to one group or place.
- Keep access narrow until the technology is profitable.
- Offer it only in regions with the most political influence.
- Wait to discuss access until after the first year.
Answer: Plan for equitable, sustainable, context-appropriate implementation so benefits are not limited to one group or place[[cite:13]].

equitable, sustainable and context-appropriate implementation

CRISPR Ethics IQ: 5 scenarios, 1 point each. 5/5 = strongly aligned with expert

Related Content From The Pandipedia