Search results for 'Genetic engineering' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
See also:
  1. Russell Powell (2010). The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):22.
    A common worry about the genetic engineering of human beings is that it will reduce human genetic diversity, creating a biological monoculture that could not only increase our susceptibility to disease but also hasten the extinction of our species. Thus far, however, the evolutionary implications of human genetic modification remain largely unexplored. In this paper, I consider whether the widespread use of genetic engineering technology is likely to narrow the present range of genetic (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  2.  35
    Chris Gyngell (2012). Enhancing the Species: Genetic Engineering Technologies and Human Persistence. Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):495-512.
    Many of the existing ethical analyses of genetic engineering technologies (GET) focus on how they can be used to enhance individuals—to improve individual well-being, health and cognition. There is a gap in the current literature about the specific ways enhancement technologies could be used to improve our populations and species, viewed as a whole. In this paper, I explore how GET may be used to enhance the species through improvements in the gene pool. I argue one aspect of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  3. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). Getting a Rise Out of Genetic Engineering. In John Huss (ed.), Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike. Open Court
    What makes humans different from other animals, what humans are entitled to do to other species, whether time travel is possible, what limits should be placed on science and technology, the morality and practicality of genetic engineering—these are just some of the philosophical problems raised by Planet of the Apes. Planet of the Apes and Philosophy looks at all the deeper issues involved in the Planet of the Apes stories. It covers the entire franchise, from Pierre Boulle’s 1963 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Roberta M. Berry (2007). The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Routledge.
    Genetic engineering: past and present as prelude to the future -- Utilitarianism and engineering to maximize welfare -- Deontology: engineering at the edges of disease, disability, difference, and death -- Virtue ethics and engineering for the virtues -- Genetic engineering, fractious problems, and a navigational approach to policymaking.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  83
    Rob De Vries (2006). Genetic Engineering and the Integrity of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.
    Genetic engineering evokes a number of objections that are not directed at the negative effects the technique might have on the health and welfare of the modified animals. The concept of animal integrity is often invoked to articulate these kind of objections. Moreover, in reaction to the advent of genetic engineering, the concept has been extended from the level of the individual animal to the level of the genome and of the species. However, the concept of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  6.  24
    Stewart Lockie (2006). Capturing the Sustainability Agenda: Organic Foods and Media Discourses on Food Scares, Environment, Genetic Engineering, and Health. [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 23 (3):313-323.
    This paper undertakes a content analysis of newspaper articles from Australia, the UK, and the US concerned with a variety of issues relevant to sustainable food and agriculture from 1996 to 2002. It then goes on to identify the various ways in which sustainability, organic food and agriculture, genetic engineering, genetically modified foods, and food safety are framed both in their own terms and in relation to each other. It finds that despite the many competing approaches to sustainability (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  7.  96
    Philipp Balzer, Klaus Peter Rippe & Peter Schaber (2000). Two Concepts of Dignity for Humans and Non-Human Organisms in the Context of Genetic Engineering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):7-27.
    The 1992 incorporation of an article by referendum in the SwissConstitution mandating that the federal government issue regulations onthe use of genetic material that take into account the dignity ofnonhuman organism raises philosophical questions about how we shouldunderstand what is meant by ``the dignity of nonhuman animals,'' andabout what sort of moral demands arise from recognizing this dignitywith respect to their genetic engineering. The first step in determiningwhat is meant is to clarify the difference between dignity when (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  8.  30
    Traci Warkentin (2006). Dis/Integrating Animals: Ethical Dimensions of the Genetic Engineering of Animals for Human Consumption. [REVIEW] AI and Society 20 (1):82-102.
    Research at the intersections of feminism, biology and philosophy provides dynamic starting grounds for this discussion of genetic technologies and animals. With a focus on animal bodies, I will examine moral implications of the genetic engineering of “domesticated” animals—primarily pigs and chickens—for the purposes of human consumption. Concepts of natural and artificial, contamination and purity, integrity and fragmentation and mind and body will feature in the discussion. In this respect, Margaret Atwood’s novel, Oryx and Crake, serves as (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  46
    Anders Melin (2004). Genetic Engineering and the Moral Status of Non-Human Species. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):479-495.
    Genetic modification leads to several important moral issues. Up until now they have mainly been discussed from the viewpoint that only individual living beings, above all animals, are morally considerable. The standpoint that also collective entities such as species belong to the moral sphere have seldom been taken into account in a more thorough way, although it is advocated by several important environmental ethicists. The main purpose of this article is to analyze in more detail than often has been (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10.  6
    R. De Vries (2006). Ethical Concepts Regarding the Genetic Engineering of Laboratory Animals. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2):211-225.
    Intrinsic value and animal integrity are two key concepts in the debate on the ethics of the genetic engineering of laboratory animals. These concepts have, on the one hand, a theoretical origin and are, on the other hand, based on the moral beliefs of people not directly involved in the genetic modification of animals. This ‘external’ origin raises the question whether these concepts need to be adjusted or extended when confronted with the moral experiences and opinions of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  84
    Russell Powell, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2012). Evolution, Genetic Engineering, and Human Enhancement. Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):439-458.
    There are many ways that biological theory can inform ethical discussions of genetic engineering and biomedical enhancement. In this essay, we highlight some of these potential contributions, and along the way provide a synthetic overview of the papers that comprise this special issue. We begin by comparing and contrasting genetic engineering with programs of selective breeding that led to the domestication of plants and animals, and we consider how genetic engineering differs from other contemporary (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  53
    Grzegorz Bugajak (2004). Theology and Genetic Engineering: New Incarnation of the Old Conflict? In Ulf Görman, Willem B. Drees & Hubert Meisinger (eds.), Studies in Science and Theology, vol. 9(2003–2004), Lunds Universitet, Lund. 127–143.
    It is widely acknowledged among science˗and˗theology thinkers – or at least desired – that we have left behind the era of conflict between science and religion. An approach which avoids conflict by pointing out that science and religion employ two different methodologies and therefore occupy two separate magisteria, is, however, unsatisfactory for both – the advocates of a fruitful dialogue between these two realms of human activity as well as the most vigorous opponents of possible conciliation, and the latter still (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  10
    Andrew Dobson (1995). Biocentrism and Genetic Engineering. Environmental Values 4 (3):227-239.
    I consider the contribution that a biocentric perspective might make to the ethical debate concerning the practice of genetic engineering. I claim that genetic engineering itself raises novel ethical questions, and particularly so when confronted with biocentric sensibilities. I outline the nature of these questions and describe the biocentric basis for them. I suggest that fundamentalist opposition to projects of genetic engineering is unhelpful, but that biocentric claims should now be a feature of ethical (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14. Martin Gunderson (2007). Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic Engineering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):87-102.
    It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the categorical imperative. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  66
    Maurizio G. Paoletti & David Pimentel (2000). Environmental Risks of Pesticides Versus Genetic Engineering for Agricultural Pest Control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):279-303.
    Despite the application of 2.5 million tons ofpesticides worldwide, more than 40% of all potentialfood production is lost to insect, weed, and plantpathogen pests prior to harvest. After harvest, anadditional 20% of food is lost to another group ofpests. The use of pesticides for pest control resultsin an estimated 26 million human poisonings, with220,000 fatalities, annually worldwide. In the UnitedStates, the environmental and public health costs forthe recommended use of pesticides total approximately$9 billion/yr. Thus, there is a need for alternativenon-chemical (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  16.  49
    Marko Ahteensuu (2012). Assumptions of the Deficit Model Type of Thinking: Ignorance, Attitudes, and Science Communication in the Debate on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):295-313.
    This paper spells out and discusses four assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking. The assumptions are: First, the public is ignorant of science. Second, the public has negative attitudes towards (specific instances of) science and technology. Third, ignorance is at the root of these negative attitudes. Fourth, the public’s knowledge deficit can be remedied by one-way science communication from scientists to citizens. It is argued that there is nothing wrong with ignorance-based explanations per se. Ignorance accounts at least (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  49
    Andrew Sneddon (2005). Rawlsian Decisionmaking and Genetic Engineering. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (1):35-41.
    This paper evaluates Sara Goering’s recent attempt to use the Rawlsian notion of the veil of ignorance as a tool for distinguishing permissible from impermissible forms of genetic engineering. I argue that her article fails due to a failure to include vital contextual information in the right way.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  11
    Lynn J. Frewer, Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd (1998). The Influence of Initial Attitudes on Responses to Communication About Genetic Engineering in Food Production. Agriculture and Human Values 15 (1):15-30.
    Source credibility has been thought to bean important determinant of peoples‘ reactions toinformation about technology. There has also been muchdebate about the need to communicate effectively withthe public about genetic engineering, particularlywithin the context of food production. Questionnaireswere used to investigate the impact of sourcecredibility, admission of risk uncertainty, andinitial attitude towards genetic engineering onattitudes of respondents after information provision.120 respondents with positive attitudes towardsgenetic engineering in food production were providedwith persuasive information about the technology,where (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  30
    Christian J. Peters (2000). Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Who Stands to Benefit? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):313-327.
    The use of genetic engineering inagriculture has been the source of much debate. Todate, arguments have focused most strongly on thepotential human health risks, the flow of geneticmaterial to related species, and ecologicalconsequences. Little attention appears to have beengiven to a more fundamental concern, namely, who willbe the beneficiaries of this technology?Given the prevalence of chronic hunger and thestark economics of farming, it is arguable thatfarmers and the hungry should be the mainbeneficiaries of agricultural research. However, theapplication of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Genetic Engineering & A. Towards (2002). Ian Holliday. In Julia Lai Po-Wah Tao (ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im) Possibility of Global Bioethics. Kluwer Academic Pub.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  34
    Andrew Edgar (2009). The Hermeneutic Challenge of Genetic Engineering: Habermas and the Transhumanists. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (2):157-167.
    The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact that developments in transhumanist technologies may have upon human cultures, and to do so by exploring a potential debate between Habermas and the transhumanists. Transhumanists, such as Nick Bostrom, typically see the potential in genetic and other technologies for positively expanding and transcending human nature. In contrast, Habermas is a representative of those who are fearful of this technology, suggesting that it will compound the deleterious effects of the colonisation (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  22.  22
    Tomasz Żuradzki (2008). Genetic Engineering and The Non-Identity Problem. Diametros 16:63-79.
    In my essay I consider the imaginary case of a future mother who refuses to undergo genetic alteration on her germline although she knows that her, as yet unconceived, child will have a serious genetic disorder. I analyze the good and bad points of two branches of arguments directed against her decision, consequentialist and rights-based. Then I discuss whether accepting one line of these arguments or the other makes a difference in moral assessment. I conclude that, although from (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  22
    Robert Heeger (2000). Genetic Engineering and the Dignity of Creatures. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (1):43-51.
    The Swiss expert report suggests thatthe inherent dignity of a living being be identifiedwith its inherent value. But the phrase ``inherentvalue of a living being'' seems to connote two conceptsof inherent value. One has a morally obligatingcharacter but is counterintuitive because of itsegalitarianism. The other is one of non-moral value.It is more compatible with considered intuitions butinsufficient for substantiating the expert report'sclaim that human beings have moral duties towardsanimals and plants. The paper discusses theseconcepts. Consideration is then given to the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  24.  11
    Lynn J. Frewer, Duncan Hedderley, Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd (1997). 'Objection'mapping in Determining Group and Individual Concerns Regarding Genetic Engineering. Agriculture and Human Values 14 (1):67-79.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  11
    Kristina Hubbard & Neva Hassanein (2013). Confronting Coexistence in the United States: Organic Agriculture, Genetic Engineering, and the Case of Roundup Ready® Alfalfa. [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 30 (3):325-335.
    In agriculture, the principle of coexistence refers to a condition where different primary production systems can exist in the vicinity of each other, and can be managed in such a way that they affect each other as little as possible. Coexistence policies aim to ensure that farmers are able to freely grow the crops they choose—be they genetically engineered (GE), non-GE conventional, or organic. In the United States (US), the issue of coexistence has very recently come into sharp relief with (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Liebe F. Cavalieri (1981). The Double-Edged Helix: Genetic Engineering in the Real World. Praeger.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Scott Eastham (2003). Biotech Time-Bomb: How Genetic Engineering Could Irreversibly Change Our World. Rsvp Pub..
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  32
    Robert A. Paoletti (1974). Selected Readings: Genetic Engineering and Bioethics. New York,Mss Information Corp..
    Social Values and Research in Human Embryology ROBERT G. EDWARDS and DAVID J. SHARP E 125 Babies by Means of In Vitro Fertilization: Unethical Experiments ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Thomas A. Shannon (1997). Made in Whose Image?: Genetic Engineering and Christian Ethics. Humanities Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  11
    Pamela L. Sankar & Mildred K. Cho (2015). Engineering Values Into Genetic Engineering: A Proposed Analytic Framework for Scientific Social Responsibility. American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):18-24.
    Recent experiments have been used to “edit” genomes of various plant, animal and other species, including humans, with unprecedented precision. Furthermore, editing the Cas9 endonuclease gene with a gene encoding the desired guide RNA into an organism, adjacent to an altered gene, could create a “gene drive” that could spread a trait through an entire population of organisms. These experiments represent advances along a spectrum of technological abilities that genetic engineers have been working on since the advent of recombinant (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  31.  22
    Bernard E. Rollin (1995). The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge University Press.
    This book is a philosophically sophisticated and scientifically well-informed discussion of the moral and social issues raised by genetically engineering animals, a powerful technology that has major implications for society. Unlike other books on this emotionally charged subject, the author attempts to inform, not inflame, the reader about the real problems society must address in order to manage this technology. Nontechnical and anecdotal in nature, written by a professor of philosophy, physiology and biophysics, this book will appeal to both (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   30 citations  
  32. S. Matthew Liao (2008). Selecting Children: The Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Engineering. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):973-991.
    Advances in reproductive genetic engineering have the potential to transform human lives. Not only do they promise to allow us to select children free of diseases, they can also enable us to select children with desirable traits. In this paper, I consider two clusters of arguments for the moral permissibility of reproductive genetic engineering, what I call the Perfectionist View and the Libertarian View; and two clusters of arguments against reproductive genetic engineering, what I (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33. Matteo Mameli (2007). Reproductive Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Autonomy of the Child: The Moral Agent and the Open Future. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):87-93.
    Some authors have argued that the human use of reproductive cloning and genetic engineering should be prohibited because these biotechnologies would undermine the autonomy of the resulting child. In this paper, two versions of this view are discussed. According to the first version, the autonomy of cloned and genetically engineered people would be undermined because knowledge of the method by which these people have been conceived would make them unable to assume full responsibility for their actions. According to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  34.  34
    S. Matthew Liao (2005). The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):116-118.
    It is quite probable that one will soon be able to use genetic engineering to select the gender of one’s child by directly manipulating the sex of an embryo. Some might think that this method would be a more ethical method of sex selection than present technologies such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), since, unlike PGD, it does not need to create and destroy “wrong-gendered” embryos. This paper argues that those who object to present technologies on the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  35.  73
    Dov Fox, Silver Spoons and Golden Genes: Genetic Engineering and the Egalitarian Ethos.
    This Article considers the moral and legal status of practices that aim to modify traits in human offspring. As advancements in reproductive biotechnology give parents greater power to shape the genetic constitution of their children, an emerging school of legal scholars has ushered in a privatized paradigm of genetic control. Commentators defend a constitutionally protected right to prenatal engineering by appeal to the significance of procreative liberty and the promise of producing future generations who are more likely (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  36. S. Matthew Liao (2005). The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):116-118.
    It is quite probable that one will soon be able to use genetic engineering to select the gender of one’s child by directly manipulating the sex of an embryo. Some might think that this method would be a more ethical method of sex selection than present technologies such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), since, unlike PGD, it does not need to create and destroy “wrong-gendered” embryos. This paper argues that those who object to present technologies on the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  37.  7
    Gregory E. Kaebnick (2016). Moral Psychology and Genetic Engineering. Hastings Center Report 46 (3).
    For the last six months or so, some of us at The Hastings Center have been participating in a kind of short-term book group. Together we have been thinking about the contribution of moral psychology to bioethics. One of our questions is whether bioethics’ understanding of moral values should draw on what moral psychology tells us about moral values. Bioethics tends to look to philosophy for guidance. Can it learn from insights in moral psychology into the biological, environmental, and cultural (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  32
    J. J. Delaney (2011). Possible People, Complaints, and the Distinction Between Genetic Planning and Genetic Engineering. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (7):410-414.
    Advances in the understanding of genetics have led to the belief that it may become possible to use genetic engineering to manipulate the DNA of humans at the embryonic stage to produce certain desirable traits. Although this currently cannot be done on a large scale, many people nevertheless object in principle to such practices. Most often, they argue that genetic enhancements would harm the children who were engineered, cause societal harms, or that the risks of perfecting the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  78
    Gavrell Ortiz Sara Elizabeth (2004). Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering. Ethics and the Environment 9 (1):94-120.
    Bernard Rollin argues that it is permissible to change an animal's telos through genetic engineering, if it doesn't harm the animal's welfare. Recent attempts to undermine his argument rely either on the claim that diminishing certain capacities always harms an animal's welfare or on the claim that it always violates an animal's integrity. I argue that these fail. However, respect for animal dignity provides a defeasible reason not to engineer an animal in a way that inhibits the development (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  16
    S. Matthew Liao (2005). The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):116-118.
    It is quite likely that parents will soon be able to use genetic engineering to select the sex of their child by directly manipulating the sex of an embryo. Some might think that this method would be a more ethical method of sex selection than present technologies such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) because, unlike PGD, it does not need to create and destroy “wrong gendered” embryos. This paper argues that those who object to present technologies on (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  41.  27
    D. A. Jones (2012). Germ-Line Genetic Engineering: A Critical Look at Magisterial Catholic Teaching. Christian Bioethics 18 (2):126-144.
    This article is written from within the Catholic, and more particularly the Augustinian/Thomist tradition of moral theology. It analyses the response of the Catholic Magisterium to the prospect of germline-genetic engineering (GGE). This is a very new issue and the Church has little definitive teaching on it. The statements of Popes and Vatican congregations or commissions have not settled the key questions. An analysis of theological themes drawn from secular writers points beyond pragmatic safety considerations toward intrinsic ethical (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  8
    Lynn J. Frewer & Richard Shepherd (1995). Ethical Concerns and Risk Perceptions Associated with Different Applications of Genetic Engineering: Interrelationships with the Perceived Need for Regulation of the Technology. [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 12 (1):48-57.
    The development of genetic engineering and its plausible consequences raises a level of controversy that can be identified at the level of public rather than scientific debate. Opposition to genetic engineering may manifest itself in rejection of the technology overall, or rejection of specific aspects of the technology, where public attitudes may be defined by a complex set of perceptions incorporating risk, benefit, control, and ethical concerns.One hundred and seventy six members of the public responded to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  43.  38
    Lucas Haley Commons-Miller, Michael Lamport Commons & Geoffrey David Commons (2008). Genetic Engineering and the Speciation of Superions From Humans. World Futures 64 (5):436-443.
    (2008). Genetic Engineering and the Speciation of Superions from Humans. World Futures: Vol. 64, Postformal Thought and Hierarchical Complexity, pp. 436-443.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  89
    Ron Epstein, Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.
    From the very first milk you suckle, your food is genetically engineered. The natural world is completely made over, invaded and distorted beyond recognition by genetically engineered trees, plants, animals, insects, bacteria, and viruses, both planned and run amok. Illnesses are very different too. Most of the old ones are gone or mutated into new forms, yet most people are suffering from genetically engineered pathogens, either used in biowarfare, or mistakenly released into the environment, or recombined in toxic form from (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  19
    Andrew Dobson (1997). Genetic Engineering and Environmental Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):205-.
    When God gave humankind dominion over the earth he may not have known exactly what we would be able to do with it. The technical capacities to which the production and reproduction of our everyday life have given rise have grown at an astonishing and, it seems, ever-increasing rate. The instruments that we use to do work on the world have become sharper and more refined, and the implications of human interventions in the nonhuman environment are much more far-reaching than (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  46.  86
    Ron Epstein, Ethical and Spiritual Issues in Genetic Engineering.
    The choices I will be talking about have to do with biotechnology and genetic engineering, choices which we are currently not making consciously because we really don't know what is going on. I would like to tell you what is going on in these areas, and then talk about how we might approach this matter in ethical ways.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  54
    Louis Marx Hall, The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection.
    It is quite probable that one will soon be able to use genetic engineering to select the gender of one’s child by directly manipulating the sex of an embryo. Some might think that this method would be a more ethical method of sex selection than present technologies such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), since, unlike PGD, it does not need to create and destroy “wrong-gendered” embryos. This paper argues that those who object to present technologies on the (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  22
    Mary Warnock (2002). Genetic Engineering and What is Natural. Think 1 (1):21.
    Some argue that genetic engineering and other scientific practices are morally wrong because they are ‘unnatural’. Prince Charles took this line in his 2000 Reith Lecture. But as Mary Warnock here points out, attempts to justify the moral condemnation of a practice on the grounds that it is ‘contrary to nature’ are notoriously difficult to sustain.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  41
    Ilhan Ilkilic & Rainer Brömer (2009). Michael J. Sandel: The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. [REVIEW] Medicine Studies 1 (2):183-185.
    Michael J. Sandel: The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 183-185 DOI 10.1007/s12376-009-0018-4 Authors Ilhan Ilkilic, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Medical Center Institute for History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine Am Pulverturm 13 55131 Mainz Germany Rainer Brömer, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Medical Center Institute for History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine Am Pulverturm 13 55131 Mainz Germany Journal Medicine Studies Online ISSN 1876-4541 Print ISSN 1876-4533 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. J. Hughes (1996). Embracing Change with All Four Arms: Post-Humanis T Defense of Genetic Engineering. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6 (4):94-101.
    This paper sets out to defend human genetic engineering with a new bioethical approach, post-humanism, combined with a radical democratic political framework. Arguments for the restriction of human genetic engineering, and specifically germ-line enhancement, are reviewed. Arguments are divided into those which are fundamental matters of faith, or "bio-Luddite" arguments, and those which can be addressed through public policy, or "gene-angst" arguments.The four bio-Luddite concerns addressed are: Medicine Makes People Sick; There are Sacred Limits of the (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000