On 7 June 2025 at 4:00 PM Cairo time (GMT+3), the Debate Session of the 8th Cohort of the Policy Advocacy in Genetics and Genomics Course was held virtually. Organized under the Pan-African PGS Education and Research Initiative (PAPERI), the event provided a dynamic platform for participants to engage in critical debates on emerging ethical and policy issues in genetics and genomics. The session highlighted the cohort’s ability to analyze complex topics and articulate diverse perspectives in a structured, policy-driven context.

Wafaa M Rashed, Faculty Lecturer of pharmacy at the Ahram Canadian University, shared highlights from the Debate Session of the 8th Cohort of the Policy Advocacy in Genetics and Genomics Course.

“Group 1 – Affirmative Team:

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 1, presenting their arguments on the topic:

‘Should researchers be required to return individual genetic findings to research participants?’

In this session, the Affirmative Team argues in favor of returning results, advocating that:

• Participants have a right to know their genetic information, especially when it affects their health.
• Returning findings respects autonomy, promotes transparency, and builds trust in science.
• Life-saving interventions (e.g., BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome) can emerge from these findings.
• Historical injustices can be addressed by ensuring equity and benefit-sharing with underrepresented communities.
• Ethical and policy frameworks (e.g., ACMG guidelines) support responsible return of actionable results.

Group 1 – Negative Team: 

This video features the Negative Team from Group 1, presenting their arguments on the topic:

‘Should researchers be required to return individual genetic findings to research participants?’

In this session, the Negative Team argues against mandatory return of results, raising key concerns such as:

•  Potential psychological harm and lack of actionable outcomes for some participants.
•  Research is not clinical care—many findings are not validated for individual health decisions.
•  Burdens on low-resource settings: limited funding, counseling, and follow-up infrastructure.
•  Over-regulation could discourage research, especially in underserved regions.
•  Voluntary informed consent already addresses whether results are returned—forcing return could undermine autonomy.

Group 2-Affirmative Team:

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 2, presenting arguments in support of the motion:

‘Should patenting human genes be outlawed?’

The team strongly argues that gene patenting should be banned, emphasizing:

• Human genes are natural discoveries, not inventions, and should not be commodified.
• Patents restrict access to life-saving diagnostics and treatments.
• Gene patenting reinforces global health inequality and limits African researchers’ autonomy.
• Science and innovation thrive on open access, not proprietary control.
• Ethical principles demand respect for human dignity, not ownership over our biology.

Group 2-Negative Team:

This video features the Negative Team from Group 2, who oppose the motion:

“Should patenting human genes be outlawed?”

The team defends the value of gene patents, arguing:

• Patents drive innovation by protecting investments in genetic research and drug development.
• Without patents, companies may hesitate to fund research on rare or neglected diseases.
• Patents do not give ownership of genes themselves—only of specific applications or discoveries.
• Proper regulation, not an outright ban, can prevent abuse while supporting advancement.
• Banning gene patents may reduce global competitiveness and limit African participation in biotech.

Group 3-Affirmative Team:

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 3, supporting the motion:

Should private tech companies be allowed to develop AI models using African genomic data?’

The team argues that, with proper safeguards, private sector involvement can be beneficial:

•  Private companies bring funding, infrastructure, and expertise to scale innovation.
•  Strategic public-private partnerships can ensure ethical use and benefit-sharing.
•  Including African data in global AI systems ensures our representation and relevance.
•  Oversight through strong ethics boards and consent processes can mitigate misuse.
•  Exclusion from private AI research risks isolation from global health breakthroughs.

Group 3-Negative Team:

This video features the Negative Team from Group 3, opposing the motion:

‘Should private tech companies be allowed to develop AI models using African genomic data?’

The team warns of serious ethical and governance risks:

•  History of exploitation and biopiracy raises concerns about fair benefit-sharing.
•  Weak data protection laws in many African countries could lead to misuse.
•  Loss of control once data is handed over to profit-driven entities.
•  AI tools developed may not benefit or be accessible to African communities.
•  Priority should be building local capacity and research sovereignty before outsourcing.

Group 4-Affirmative Team:

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 4, supporting the motion:

‘Should genomic testing in minors require child assent in addition to parental consent?’

The team argues for respecting minors’ evolving autonomy and protecting their rights:

• Involving children fosters respect, trust, and understanding of their health decisions.
• Ethical standards increasingly recognize the importance of child assent, especially for non-urgent testing.
• Parental consent alone may not be sufficient in cases where the child is mature enough to understand.
• Assent reduces the risk of psychological harm or future regret.
• Builds ethical integrity in pediatric research and healthcare.

Group 4-Negative Team:

This video features the Negative Team from Group 4, opposing the motion:

‘Should genomic testing in minors require child assent in addition to parental consent?’

The team raises concerns about feasibility, ethics, and practical implications:

•  Parents are the primary legal guardians responsible for making informed decisions in the child’s best interest.
•  Children may lack the maturity to fully understand complex genetic implications.
•  Adding assent requirements could delay critical diagnostic or preventative care.
•  Existing consent frameworks already consider the child’s welfare.
•  Requiring assent may complicate research or healthcare in urgent or low-resource contexts.

Group 5-Affirmative Team: 

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 5, supporting the motion:

‘Should health systems invest in personalized genomic medicine, or focus on expanding access to basic care for all?’

The team argues that investing in personalized genomic medicine is not a luxury, but a necessity for future-ready healthcare:

•  Genomic medicine enables early detection, targeted treatment, and prevention of complex diseases.
•  Investing now can reduce long-term healthcare costs through precision interventions.
•  Equitable access to advanced technologies can uplift underserved populations when integrated responsibly.

Group 5-Negative Team:

This video features the Negative Team from Group 5, opposing the motion:

‘Should health systems invest in personalized genomic medicine, or focus on expanding access to basic care for all?’

The team argues for prioritizing universal basic care to address urgent and widespread needs:

• Millions still lack access to clean water, vaccines, and essential health services.
• Genomic medicine is expensive and benefits a minority, widening health disparities.
• The focus should be on scalable, community-level interventions that save lives today.
• Overemphasis on high-tech solutions risks diverting resources from basic health equity.
• Long-term development must begin with strengthening health system foundations.

Group 6-Affirmative Team:

This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 6, supporting the motion:

‘Should genetically modified microorganisms be widely used to combat antibiotic resistance?’

The team argues in favor of leveraging biotechnology to address one of the world’s most urgent public health threats:

• Genetically modified microbes can neutralize resistant pathogens and restore treatment effectiveness.
• Traditional antibiotics are failing — innovation is essential to stay ahead of superbugs.
• Responsible use of GM organisms, with proper oversight, can save millions of lives.
• Africa has the opportunity to lead in safe, ethical deployment of next-gen antimicrobial tools.
• Delaying action risks a global health catastrophe.

Group 6-Negative Team:

This video features the Negative Team from Group 6, opposing the motion:

‘Should genetically modified microorganisms be widely used to combat antibiotic resistance?’

The team raises strong concerns about safety, ethics, and unintended consequences:

•  GM microbes may pose ecological risks and could escape containment.
•  Long-term effects on human health and the environment are still uncertain.
•  Widespread use may shift focus away from essential public health strategies like stewardship and prevention.
•  Africa must build robust regulatory systems before deploying high-risk technologies.
•  Innovation must be balanced with caution to prevent creating new problems.”

More posts featuring Wafaa M Rashed.