About

John M. Conley is the William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor of Law at UNC School of Law, having joined the faculty in 1983. His teaching and research interests include civil procedure, intellectual property, biotechnology and the law, social science and the law, and professional responsibility. He has authored numerous books, articles, and chapters on law and language, professional and institutional culture, corporate behavior, the law of intellectual property as applied to emerging technologies, and scientific evidence. His current research involves the ethnographic study of the practice of genomic medicine. Conley has co-edited the Law and Society Book Series for the University of Chicago Press since 1990, which has published several of his works, including the third edition of his book 'Just Words: Law, Language, and Power' in 2019. His articles have appeared in various interdisciplinary journals such as Science, Law & Society Review, Law & Social Inquiry, and Harvard Business Review. Additionally, he is the editor and principal author of the blog The Privacy Report, which addresses issues in privacy, intellectual property, and health law. Conley holds a Ph.D. in anthropology and a J.D. from Duke University, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Duke Law Journal and a member of the Order of the Coif. Before his academic career, he practiced civil litigation for six years at law firms in Boston and Charlotte.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Computer Science
• Law
• Business
• Public relations
• Management
• Engineering
• Social Science
• Engineering ethics
• Genetics
• Biology
• Social psychology
• Public administration
• Psychology
• Law and economics
• Medical emergency
• Medicine

Selected publications

• The public-private research ecosystem in the genome editing era

  UNC Libraries · 2025-01-28

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-25

  articleOpen access

  This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."

  PublisherDOI

• Human heritable genome editing and its governance: views of scientists and governance professionals

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-25

  articleOpen access

  Heritable human genome editing has garnered significant attention in scholarly and lay media, yet questions remain about whether, when, and how heritable genome editing ought to proceed. Drawing on interviews with scientists who use genome editing in their research and professionals engaged in human genome editing governance efforts, we examine their views on the permissibility of heritable genome editing and the governance strategies they see as necessary and realistic. For both issues, we found divergent views from respondents. We place the views of these scientists and governance professionals within the context of the larger bioethical discussion of heritable genome editing governance, along a continuum of hard to soft approaches. These respondents’ views highlight the challenges of various hard forms of governance and the potential virtues of soft governance approaches.

  PublisherDOI

• The impact of the three major human genome editing reports on the governance landscape

  Journal of Community Genetics · 2025-06-16 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  In 2018, the scientific community was shocked by news that a rogue scientist’s genome editing of embryos had resulted in the birth of twin girls in China. Three major international reports offering ethical and governance guidance on human genome editing (HGE) (by the National Academies’ and Royal Society’s International Commission, the WHO, and the European Group on Ethics) followed in 2020 and 2021. This paper examines whether and how the publication of these reports has had any discernible impact on the global governance landscape. We compare global laws and regulations before and after the reports’ issuance as well as the evolution of softer forms of governance, including funding standards and scientific norms. Data includes the three reports and interviews with people who participated in drafting them. Our analysis indicates that it is impossible to draw direct causal connections between the reports and subsequent legal reforms. In fact, very little has changed in the global legal landscape since they were issued. However, the reports, as well as the broader governance environment (both hard and soft law) reflect a widely shared set of scientific and moral values that have been evolving over the last decade. In that sense, the reports have played an important role in refining, ratifying, and publicizing those values. The weight accorded to the reports will make it near impossible for the scientific community and its governmental overseers to repudiate those values and will help to ensure that future scientific developments will be evaluated in their light.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-25

  articleOpen access

  As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.

  PublisherDOI

• Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-25

  articleOpen access

  Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists’ views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional “knowledge-deficit model.” Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists’ adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

  PublisherDOI

• A New Governance Approach to Regulating Human Genome Editing.

  North Carolina journal of law & technology · 2025 · 6 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Political Science
  • Public relations

  For years, genomic medicine-medicine based on the growing understanding of the genetic contribution to many diseases and conditions-has been hailed as the future of medical treatment, but it has thus far had limited effect on day-to-day medical practice. The ultimate goal of genomic medicine has always been the ability not just to identify dangerous gene mutations, but to fix them. Now CRISPR and related genome-editing technologies may have the potential to provide a safe and effective way to repair dangerous mutations. In the wake of ethically dubious experiments with human embryos in China, the international governance of human genome editing is emerging as an urgent topic for scientists, regulators, and the public. Efforts to develop a governance model are underway at national and international levels. These efforts are the subject of multiple initiatives by national and international health and science organizations and are topics of discussion at scientific conferences, summits, and meetings. This Article reports on the Authors' multi-year, interdisciplinary project to identify and investigate the practical, ethical, and policy considerations that are emerging as the greatest concerns about human genome editing, and ultimately to develop policy options. The project involves monitoring the discussions of groups, both government-sponsored and private, that are considering how genome editing should be governed; observing conferences where the topic is discussed; analyzing emerging policy reports by national and international bodies; and interviewing a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, ethicists, and those who make and comment on public policy. The Article identifies several stakeholder concerns that are especially prominent in the research to date and begins to explore the implications of these concerns for alternative models of governance. There are current indications that, for practical purposes, a focus on "soft," hybrid forms of governance based on networks of multiple public and private stakeholders may turn out to be the most promising course to pursue. The "new governance" paradigm developed in the corporate and financial sectors offers a useful model for understanding the dynamics of this approach.

  PublisherOA PDF

• Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Human Gene Editing?

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-26

  articleOpen access

  New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what "prevention" might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its "off-label" uses.

  PublisherDOI

• Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing

  UNC Libraries · 2025-03-04

  articleOpen access

  Traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement goals for human genome editing (HGE) have animated oversight considerations, yet these categories have been complicated by the addition of prevention as a possible target for HGE applications. To assess the role these three categories might play in continued HGE governance efforts, we report on interviews with genome editing scientists and governance group members. While some accepted traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement and rejected the latter as unacceptable, others argued that the concept of enhancement is largely irrelevant or not as morally problematic as suggested. Others described how preventive goals for HGE create gray zones where prevention and enhancement may be difficult to distinguish, which may stymie uses of HGE. We conclude by discussing the governance implications of these various understandings of treatment, prevention, and enhancement as HGE research moves beyond the treatment of serious disease to embrace longer range preventive goals.

  PublisherDOI

• The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research

  UNC Libraries · 2025-02-25

  articleOpen access

  The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• William M. O’Barr

  32 shared

• Cynthia A. Williams

  23 shared

• R. Jean Cadigan

  22 shared

• Arlene M. Davis

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  21 shared

• Eric T. Juengst

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  16 shared

• Gabriel Lázaro‐Muñoz

  Harvard University

  14 shared

• Margaret Waltz

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  13 shared

• Lissa L. Broome

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  12 shared

Education

• B.A., Political Science

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  1983

• Other, Law

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  1986

• Ph.D., Political Science

  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  1991