Summarise and paraphrase the text, please keep the numbers in the brackets:

Question

There have been various proposals
for a different type of international governance mechanism that does not so much set and enforce
rules or guidelines on genome editing as facilitate greater public and stakeholder engagement on
genome editing governance. Virtually every expert report on human genome editing has called
for ongoing public engagement and dialogue to establish a broad social consensus before various genome editing approaches are attempted (30, 46, 54, 77, 82, 83, 97).Given the stakes and interests
of all humans in the application of such technology, such public participation in deciding uses of
human genome editing is imperative, but implementing this imperative ismore challenging (2, 11,
82). First, there are no good precedents for global public engagement mechanisms. An oft-cited
example of successful public engagement is the approval of mitochondrial DNA replacement in
the United Kingdom after an extensive public engagement process (24, 56), but applying such a
process globally would be more problematic (51). A second challenge is that complete global consensus
will of course never be possible, especially given the significant cultural, ethical, historical,
and legal differences among countries (20, 46, 82) and the major differences in public opinion
among and within nations on various gene editing applications (74, 78).
Notwithstanding (and indeed, to actively take on) these challenges, a number of innovative
proposals for stakeholder and public engagement on genome editing have been put forward (10).
One initiative that has actually already been launched is the Association for Responsible Research
and Innovation in Genome Editing, a global nonprofit organization that seeks to promote the
responsible global governance of genome editing through the involvement and interaction of
a broad range of stakeholders (81). Another idea that has been proposed is to create a global
consortium of 10–15 organizations that would be charged with connecting people with the science
and policy debates around human genome editing (15). Another proposal is to create a “global
observatory” on human gene editing that would consist of a network of scholars and organizations
that would be “dedicated to gathering information from dispersed sources, bringing to the fore
perspectives that are often overlooked, and promoting exchange across disciplinary and cultural
divides” (61, p. 436). Yet another proposal put forward is to create a “global citizens assembly” (42,
p. 1435) consisting of a representative sampling of people from around the world to deliberate and
give input on genome editing governance. The idea of a Governance Coordinating Committee
has been suggested as a mechanism for various stakeholders to communicate and coordinate with
each other (76). A key ingredient missing from all of these proposals is an institution that would
fund and host the initiative.

Answer 1

Various proposals have been made for an international governance framework focused on enhancing public and stakeholder engagement in genome editing rather than merely enforcing rules. Expert reports on human genome editing consistently emphasize the importance of ongoing public dialogue to build social consensus before implementing any genome editing methods (30, 46, 54, 77, 82, 83, 97). Given the significant implications for humanity, public involvement in decisions regarding genome editing is essential, though challenging to operationalize (2, 11, 82). There are limited precedents for global public engagement, with the UK's approval of mitochondrial DNA replacement often cited as a successful example (24, 56); however, replicating that process worldwide poses greater difficulties (51). Achieving total global consensus is also unrealistic due to cultural, ethical, historical, and legal disparities among countries (20, 46, 82), as well as varying public opinions on gene editing (74, 78).

Despite these challenges, several innovative strategies for public and stakeholder engagement in genome editing governance have emerged (10). One established initiative is the Association for Responsible Research and Innovation in Genome Editing, a global nonprofit committed to promoting responsible governance through diverse stakeholder involvement (81). Another proposal involves forming a global consortium of 10–15 organizations to connect individuals with ongoing science and policy discussions related to human genome editing (15). A “global observatory” made up of a network of scholars and organizations has also been suggested to collect information from various sources and foster dialogue across different disciplines and cultures (61, p. 436). Additionally, the idea of a “global citizens assembly” (42, p. 1435) aims to include a representative group from around the world to provide input on genome editing governance. Lastly, the concept of a Governance Coordinating Committee has been proposed to facilitate communication among stakeholders (76). However, all these proposals currently lack a dedicated institution to fund and manage them.