"CRISPR: Science can't solve it"

"The idea that the risks, benefits and ethical challenges of these emerging technologies are something to be decided by experts is wrong-headed, futile and self-defeating. It misunderstands the role of science in public discussions about technological risk. It seriously underestimates the democratic sources of science's vitality and the capacities of democratic deliberation. And it will further delegitimize and politicize science in modern societies.

The never-ending debates about genetically modified (GM) organisms, nuclear power, chemical toxicity and the efficacy of cancer screening should be evidence enough that science does not limit or resolve controversies about risk.
There is no way to capture the full complexity of these issues from a scientific perspective...

Scientists are not elected. They cannot represent the cultural values, politics and interests of citizens — not least because their values may differ significantly from those of people in other walks of life. A 2007 study⁶ on the social implications of nanotechnology, for instance, showed that nanoscientists had little concern about such technologies eliminating jobs, whereas the public was greatly concerned (see 'A matter of perspective'). Each group was being rational. Nanoscientists have good reason to be optimistic about the opportunities created by technological frontiers; citizens can be justifiably worried that such frontiers will wreak havoc on labour markets."
http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-science-can-t-solve-it-1.17806

Yes. yes.

I think it's definitely the responsibility of the scientific community to make the information about these advances accessible to the public. And to interrogate our sense of division from the public. To figure out what authority we actually have over what happens outside of lab. And which responsibilities.
(Credit to MA)