Paraphrase and summarise, please keep the numbers in the brackets:

Question

A number of experts and entities have called for a global
governance framework for developing scientific and ethical standards for human genome editing
and approving permissible gene editing translational pathways (48, 56, 77). The WHO expert
committee is scheduled to issue its final report on a global governance framework for gene editing
in 2021. In an interim statement, the committee stated that it plans to propose a governance
framework that can do the following:
(i) Identify relevant issues, a range of specific mechanisms to address them, and be developed
in collaboration with the widest possible range of institutions, organizations and peoples.
(ii) Be scalable, sustainable and appropriate for use at the international, regional, national and
local levels.
(iii) Work in parts of the world where there is traditionally weaker regulation of scientific and
clinical research and practice, and where genome editing may not yet be pursued or invested
in with great intensity.
(iv) Provide those with specific governance roles for human genome editing with the tools and
guidance they need. (106, p. 2)
One proposed model is a global framework inspired by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, in which researchers must propose and obtain approval for specific research
or clinical heritable gene editing proposals (85). All researchers or clinicians who propose such
gene editing would be required to adhere to a code of conduct that includes specific ethical principles that must be followed (85). The global framework may also include “legal strategies for the
prevention and penalization of unacceptable research” (85, p. 145).
Proposals for a global governance framework have generally been silent or ambiguous about
the institutional home of such a framework, but they generally envision some type of formal entity that goes beyond the existing informal and ad hoc governance system (56). One option would
be an existing international organization, such as the WHO, although the WHO is more advisory than regulatory and does not have international enforcement authority. Nevertheless, the
WHO could set forth a scientific and ethical framework for permissible genome editing, which
could be updated over time and which would set a standard of care and guidelines for nations and
scientists contemplating human genome editing. The WHO has created similar nonenforceable
but nonetheless influential governance frameworks for other health technologies, such as xenotransplantation (53). Other options for existing international bodies to provide a home for this
international genome editing governance framework include UNESCO and the OECD (56).
Alternatively, a de novo institutional structure could be established, perhaps as the administrative body for a framework convention on human genome editing, similar to what has been created
for tobacco or proposed for nanotechnology (1, 99). A third possibility would be a self-regulatory
approach, such as the Helsinki Declaration principles for research subject ethics pronounced (and
periodically updated) by the World Medical Association, which does not directly enforce its principles but instead relies on national governments, professional societies, and medical professionals
to do so (109). This model would be less interactive than the other two because it does not provide
for two-way dialogue with researchers and regulators about specific proposals or approaches

Answer 1

Various experts and organizations advocate for a global governance framework to establish scientific and ethical standards for human genome editing and to approve acceptable gene editing pathways (48, 56, 77). The World Health Organization (WHO) expert committee is set to release its final report on this governance framework in 2021. In a preliminary statement, the committee outlined plans to propose a framework that aims to:

(i) Identify key issues and mechanisms for addressing them, developed in collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders.
(ii) Be scalable, sustainable, and applicable at international, regional, national, and local levels.
(iii) Function effectively in regions with less stringent regulations regarding scientific and clinical research, where genome editing is still emerging.
(iv) Equip governance roles in human genome editing with necessary tools and guidance (106, p. 2).

One suggested model is inspired by the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, requiring researchers to obtain approval for specific heritable gene editing projects (85). Researchers must adhere to a code of conduct encompassing ethical principles (85). This global framework may also incorporate legal measures to prevent and penalize unacceptable research (85, p. 145).

Proposed governance frameworks often lack clarity on the institutional entity that would oversee them but generally anticipate a formal body to replace the current informal governance systems (56). One potential option is an established international organization like the WHO, which could provide scientific and ethical guidelines, despite its advisory rather than regulatory role. The WHO has previously influenced governance frameworks for other health technologies, such as xenotransplantation (53). Other possibilities for hosting the governance framework include UNESCO and the OECD (56). Alternatively, a new institutional entity could be created, potentially functioning similarly to existing frameworks for tobacco or nanotechnology (1, 99). A third option could involve a self-regulatory model based on the Helsinki Declaration principles, which relies on national governments and professional bodies for enforcement, offering less engagement than the previous two models (109).