whether reasoning begins with theories grounded in utilitarian consequentialism or deontology or virtue ethics, there has emerged over time what some deem “reflective equilibrium.” This concept encompasses the use of both inductive and deductive reasoning, incorporating both theory and case-based casuistry, and accepting the need for reasoning that is understandable to the public, regardless of individual spiritual or religious orientation (Arras, 2016). It has helped shape influential statements and guidance documents across the globe. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948), adopted shortly after World War II, became the foundational document for many of the more particularized declarations, conventions, and treaties that followed. In its preamble, it states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and its very first provision reads, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Other international documents build on this core principle. The Convention on Rights of the Child, for example, calls for providing conditions for optimal development, such as health care and sanitation (UNICEF, 1990). And the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes “respect for inherent dignity,” “respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity,” and “respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities” (UN, 2006). Not every convention is legally binding in whole or part on every country, but even where not incorporated into domestic statutes or applied in domestic court cases, the principles underlying these conventions have become important elements of global norms and aspirations. Other international activities are focused more closely on biomedical research. The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) is an international, nongovernmental, nonprofit entity established in 1949 jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), whose members include nearly 50 organizations—professional societies, national academies, research councils—from across the globe. Among other things, it issues international guidelines for health research14 based on such guidance documents as the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki (WMA, 2013) and UNESCO’s (2005) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The 2016 version of the guidelines (van Delden and van der Graaf, 2016) stresses “the need for research having scientific and social value, by providing special guidelines for health-related research in low-resource settings, by detailing the provisions for involving vulnerable groups in research and for describing under what conditions biological samples and health-related data can be used for research” (CIOMS, 2012). Of particular relevance to genome- 13Further discussion of these issues can be found in Arras (2016). 14See http://www.cioms.ch (accessed January 5, 2017). Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN GENOME EDITING 23 PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL REVISION editing policy questions are Guideline 1, emphasizing the need to generate knowledge to protect and promote health, and its relationship to Guidelines 2, 3, and 4, which focus on fairness in the balance and distribution of risks and benefits to individuals and groups (including distribution among populations of high- and low-resource countries). Also of particular relevance is Guideline 7 on public engagement, needed not only to develop and legitimize good policy but also to help translate research into clinical benefit. In the United States, the landmark 1979 Belmont Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral research (HHS, 1979) focused on avoiding infliction of harm, accepting a duty of beneficence, and maintaining a commitment to justice. These pillars of research ethics have been interpreted, expanded, deepened, and applied over the years and incorporated into the U.S. system for governing research with human participants (21 CFR Part 50 and 45 CFR Part 46). In practice, they have resulted in a focus on ensuring a reasonable balance between risk and hoped-for benefits, to the individual and to society, and on ensuring that both risks and benefits are equitably shared. These principles also have come to incorporate particular attention to the need for respect of individual autonomy, in the form of generally requiring informed and voluntary participation, and the need to provide special protection against coercion or abuse of those who are vulnerable because of incapacity or circumstances. Because both the science and the applications of genome editing will transcend national boundaries, the core principles for governance of human genome detailed below build on the foundations of these international and national norms. Some of these principles are generally relevant to biomedical