Perspective
Early View Article
DOI DOI: 10.62063/rev-39

CRISPR governance at the nexus of public health and national security: Priority setting and risk calculus in Turkey’s emerging bioeconomy

Zehra Durmus1
  1. 1 Biruni University

Abstract

CRISPR-based genome editing has moved rapidly from a laboratory technique into a contested object of governance. In public health framings, CRISPR is presented as a platform for treating rare and severe genetic diseases, advancing diagnostics, and reducing long-term burdens on health systems. In national security framings, the same capabilities raise dual-use concerns, including misuse of gene editing and gene synthesis, and motivate research security agendas that manage access to sensitive knowledge, materials, and supply chains. This paper asks two linked questions. Who sets priorities for CRISPR when both public health and national security claims are mobilized, and under what risk calculus are trade-offs justified? Drawing on science and technology studies, the paper uses co-production and sociotechnical imaginaries to show how definitions of benefit, harm, and acceptable uncertainty are assembled through institutions rather than settled by technical expertise alone (Jasanoff, 2004; Jasanoff & Kim, 2015). Sarewitz’s critique that science cannot resolve many risk controversies provides a baseline for analyzing legitimacy (Sarewitz, 2015), while Doudna’s reflections after the He Jiankui episode highlight the limits of self-governance and the need for enforceable oversight (Doudna & Kearney, 2020). Empirically, the paper presents a desk-based case study of Turkey, focusing on two post-pandemic capability-building tracks. First, domestic vaccine development and authorization, exemplified by TURKOVAC, which became a public symbol of biomedical sovereignty (Ministry of Health of Turkey, 2021). Second, the state-supported genomic infrastructure building through the Türkiye Genome Project, led by TÜSEB, aims to enable precision medicine by expanding national genome and bioinformatics capacity (TÜSEB, n.d.). The analysis reveals that public health and national security often do not function as a clear binary. Instead, priorities are negotiated through boundary work among ministries, regulators, universities, and industry, with uncertainty managed via global guidance documents and narratives of urgency. The paper concludes by proposing bounded openness. It combines inclusive deliberation on value conflicts with targeted biosecurity controls focused on high-consequence misuse pathways, rather than broad restrictions that could undermine public health innovation.

How to Cite

Durmus, Z. (2026). CRISPR governance at the nexus of public health and national security: Priority setting and risk calculus in Turkey’s emerging bioeconomy. EUCHEMBIOJ Reviews, 2(1), e26004. https://doi.org/10.62063/rev-39
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Almeida, M., & Ranisch, R. (2022). Beyond safety: mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y
  2. Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028
  3. Baumann, M. (2016). CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing - new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology. Nanoethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0259-0
  4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
  5. Benston, S. (2022). Walking a fine germline: Synthesizing public opinion and legal precedent to develop policy recommendations for heritable gene-editing. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10186-8
  6. Brokowski, C. (2018). Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it? The CRISPR Journal. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2017.0024
  7. Christian, A. (2022). Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.775336
  8. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. St. Martin's Press.
  9. Cong, L., Ran, F. A., Cox, D., Lin, S., Barretto, R., Habib, N., et al. (2013). Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231143
  10. Cook-Deegan, R. (2018). CRISPR patents: Aspiring to coherent patent policy. The American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1533739
  11. Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096
  12. Doudna, J., & Kearney, W. (2020). An interview with Nobel Prize-winner Jennifer Doudna: A viable path toward responsible use. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(3). https://issues.org/jennifer-doudna-interview/
  13. Fajardo-Ortiz, D., Hornbostel, S., Montenegro-de Wit, M., & Shattuck, A. (2022). Funding CRISPR: Understanding the role of government and philanthropy in supporting academic research within the CRISPR innovation system. Quantitative Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00187
  14. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
  15. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press.
  16. Lakoff, A. (2017). Unprepared: Global health in a time of emergency. University of California Press.
  17. Matthews, D. (2022). Access to CRISPR Genome Editing Technologies: Patents, Human Rights and the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83114-1_4
  18. Meyer, M., & Heimstädt, C. (2019). The divergent governance of gene editing in agriculture: A comparison of institutional reports from seven EU member states. Plant Biotechnology Reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-019-00578-5
  19. Ministry of Health of Turkey. (2021, December 27). Minister Koca announced TURKOVAC’s emergency use authorization. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Health. https://www.saglik.gov.tr/EN-86956/minister-koca-announced-turkovacs-emergency-use-authorization.html
  20. Naidoo, M., & Thaldar, D. (2022). Clearing the CRISPR patent landscape: Towards a solution for South Africa. South African Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i2a6
  21. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24623
  22. National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society. (2020). Heritable human genome editing. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25665
  23. National Research Council. (2004). Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10827/biotechnology-research-in-an-age-of-terrorism
  24. Nestor, M. W., & Wilson, R. L. (2020). Beyond Mendelian genetics: Anticipatory biomedical ethics and governance implications for the use of CRISPR together with gene drive in humans. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09957-7
  25. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publication/genome-editing-and-human-reproduction-social-and-ethical-issues/
  26. Oye, K. A., Esvelt, K., Appleton, E., Catteruccia, F., Church, G., Kuiken, T., Lightfoot, S. B. Y., McNamara, J., Smidler, A., & Collins, J. (2014). Regulating gene drives. Science, 345(6197), 626-628. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254287
  27. Rojas-Padilla, E., Metze, T., & Dewulf, A. (2024). Cliquepolitik: Multimodal online discourse coalitions on CRISPR-Cas genome editing technology. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12590
  28. Sarewitz, D. (2015). CRISPR: Science can't solve it. Nature, 522(7557), 413-414. https://doi.org/10.1038/522413a
  29. Sarewitz, D., & Nelson, R. R. (2008). Three rules for technological fixes. Nature, 456(7224), 871-872. https://doi.org/10.1038/456871a
  30. Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., Freiling, I., & Brossard, D. (2021). What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(22), e2004835117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004835117
  31. Sherkow, J. S. (2017). CRISPR, Patents, and the Public Health. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.
  32. Sherkow, J. S. (2019). Controlling CRISPR Through Law: Legal Regimes as Precautionary Principles. The CRISPR journal. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2019.0029
  33. Stirling, A. (2008). 'Opening up' and 'closing down': Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265
  34. Tucker, J. B. (2010). Double-edged DNA: Preventing the misuse of gene synthesis. Issues in Science and Technology, 26(3). https://issues.org/tucker-2/
  35. TÜSEB. (n.d.). Türkiye Genome Project (Turkey National Genome and Bioinformatics Project). Presidency of the Institutes of Health of Turkey. https://tgd.tuseb.gov.tr/en/
  36. US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. (2023). Screening framework guidance for providers and users of synthetic nucleic acids. https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Documents/SynNA-Guidance-2023.pdf
  37. Weisberg, S. M., Badgio, D., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). A CRISPR new world: Attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117
  38. Wit, M. (2020). Democratizing CRISPR? Stories, practices, and politics of science and governance on the agricultural gene editing frontier. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.405
  39. World Health Organization. (2021). Human genome editing: A framework for governance. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/342484
  40. World Health Organization. (2021). Human genome editing: Recommendations. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/342486