About this topic
Summary This section is on the hypothetical genetic modification of human individuals through genetic engineering and the actual modification of the gene pool through (eugenic or disgenic) genetic selection. The ethics of gene-therapy and genetic selection is especially complex. One issue is whether germ-line (inheritable) genetic modification is more problematic than somatic (non inheritable) gene-therapy, even when comparably safe. Another issue is whether society ought to permit eugenic or disgenic goals to be achieved by genetic selection in the context of advanced reproductive technologies; this relates to (A) what defines a genetic modification or selection as "eugenic" or "disgenic", for instance, is selecting for deafness an instance of "disgenic" selection? (B) Whether eugenic goals are impermissible, permissible or even mandatory, and (C) whether genetic tests are a reliable basis of the achievement of eugenic goals. Another topic of discussions relates to whether there are important moral differences between (I) avoiding the most serious diseases and disabilities, (II) boosting protection from normal harmful circumstances, such as pathogens or pollutants (III) promoting conditions within and above normal human health, that are positively desirable or comparatively advantageous. 
Key works Harris 1992 argues that it is mandatory to modify disabilities through gene-therapy, including many traits that are considered normal or non pathological. Savulescu 2001 argues that parents have a moral obligation to select the best children in the context of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) based on available genetic information. Agar 2008 endorses the liberal version of eugenics, since, unlike early twentieth century eugenics, it is compatible with a pluralism of different conceptions about human flourishing. Against such or similar views,  Habermas 2003 defends a principled distinction between gene-therapy to cure disease and genetic manipulation allowing parents to select the traits of future children. The latter is seen as incompatible with egalitarian relationships between human beings and their freedom of choice. Taking an intermediate position, Buchanan et al 2000 defend a Rawlsian approach to genetic justice, inspired by Buchanan's idea of a genetic decent minimum (Buchanan 1995) and Daniels' normal functioning approach to health care (Daniels 1985). They hold that society has the duty, as a matter of justice, to use gene therapy to correct disease, subject to reasonable resource constrains. In addition to this, in a future society in which genetic enhancements are widespread, normal functioning may require enhanced human capacities. They also attempts to reject the "social model of disability", in an extreme form, while recognising that the classification of X as a disability is, today and in a genetically modified future, society-relative (Silvers 2001).
Introductions Brock 2003 Chadwick 2011 Glover 2008
Related categories

395 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 395
  1. added 2020-04-01
    Can Reproductive Genetic Manipulation Save Lives?G. Owen Schaefer - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.
    It has recently been argued that reproductive genetic manipulation technologies like mitochondrial replacement and germline CRISPR modifications cannot be said to save anyone’s life because, counterfactually, no one would suffer more or die sooner absent the intervention. The present article argues that, on the contrary, reproductive genetic manipulations may be life-saving (and, from this, have therapeutic value) under an appropriate population health perspective. As such, popular reports of reproductive genetic manipulations potentially saving lives or preventing disease are not necessarily mistaken, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. added 2020-02-28
    Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing.Donna Dickenson - 2020 - The New Bioethics 26 (1):75-77.
    Review of Francoise Baylis, Altered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing (2019).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. added 2020-02-21
    Cognitive Enhancement and Network Effects: How Individual Prosperity Depends on Group Traits.Jonathan Anomaly & Garett Jones - 2020 - Philosophia:1-16.
  4. added 2019-12-09
    Genome Editing: Slipping Down Toward Eugenics?Davide Battisti - 2019 - Medicina Historica 3 (3):206-218.
    In this paper, I will present the empirical version of the slippery slope argument (SSA) in the field of genome editing. According to the SSA, if we adopt germline manipulation of embryos we will eventually end up performing or allowing something morally reprehensible, such as new coercive eugenics. I will investigate the actual possibility of sliding towards eugenics: thus, I will examine enhancement and eugenics both in the classical and liberal versions, through the lens of SSA. In the first part, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. added 2019-11-13
    Improving the Justice‐Based Argument for Conducting Human Gene Editing Research to Cure Sickle Cell Disease.Berman Chan - 2020 - Bioethics 34 (2):200-202.
    In a recent article, Marilyn Baffoe-Bonnie offers three arguments for conducting CRISPR/Cas9 biotechnology research to cure sickle-cell disease (SCD) based on addressing historical and current injustices in SCD research and care. I show that her second and third arguments suffer from roughly the same defect, which is that they really argue for something else rather than for conducting CRISPR/Cas9 research in particular to cure SCD. For instance, the second argument argues that conducting this gene therapy research would improve the relationship (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. added 2019-10-07
    Toward Realism About Genetic Enhancement.G. Owen Schaefer - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (7):28-30.
    Volume 19, Issue 7, July 2019, Page 28-30.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. added 2019-08-01
    Germ-Line Enhancements, Inequalities and the Egalitarian Ethos.Oliver Feeney - 2010 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (2).
    In most discussions of the social justice implications of new genetic technologies, enhancements are considered to be highly contentious. This is particularly so when we speak of enhancements that benefit the recipient in positional terms and enhancements that are germ-line and which can be passed on to future generations. I argue that the egalitarian reluctance, as displayed by Max Mehlman, to permitting enhancements is overblown. Recent writings from Buchanan and Farrelly highlight a more positive, context-dependent, role for permitting the socio-economically (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2019-06-27
    Cloning Centering at Egoism.Yusuke Kaneko - 2019 - The Basis : The Annual Bulletin of Research Center for Liberal Education 9:245-260.
    Cloning research caught a great deal of attention when Dolly the sheep was born (§4). While some fear surrounded the attainment (§§14-15), Wilmutʼs research itself has grown well, providing a less vicious manner to gain ES cells (§12). In this article, we review the progress of cloning research along with the concern of medical circles about its application to reproductive cloning, that is to say, making replicas of human beings (§§16-21). Note that all the content is ascribed to the author (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. added 2019-06-26
    Genomic Obsolescence: What Constitutes an Ontological Threat to Human Nature?Michal Klincewicz & Lily Frank - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (7):39-40.
  10. added 2019-06-19
    Did a permissive scientific culture encourage the 'CRISPR babies' experiment?Donna Dickenson & Marcy Darnovsky - 2019 - Nature Biotechnology 27:350-369.
    We review the Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2018 report on germline gene editing and show how its shortcomings are part of an increasingly permissive climate among elite scientists that may well have emboldened the Chinese 'CRISPR babies' experiment. Without a robust and meaningful airing of the perils of human germline modification, these views are likely to encourage additional, more mainstream moves in the same dangerous direction.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. added 2019-06-14
    Resisting the Temptation of Perfection.Joseph Tham - 2017 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (1):51-62.
    With the advance of CRISPR technology, parents will be tempted to create superior offspring who are healthier, smarter, and stronger. In addition to the fact that many of these procedures are considered immoral for Catholics, they could change human nature in radical and possibly disastrous ways. This article focuses on the question of human perfectionism. First, by considering the relationship between human nature and technology, it analyzes whether such advances can improve human nature in addition to curing diseases. Next, it (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. added 2019-06-14
    Bioscience Policies.Donna Dickenson - 2015 - eLS (Formerly Known as the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences).
    The rapid pace of change in the biosciences makes setting biotechnology policies and regulating the sciences difficult for governments, but no less necessary for that. Although government policies around the globe are sometimes classed as ‘pro-science’ or ‘anti-science’, that is a misleading oversimplification. Nurturing the ‘bioeconomy’ is a key goal for most national governments, leading in the UK to a comparatively loose regulatory policy, for example in relation to mitochondrial transfer and germline genetic modification. But in genetic patenting, a recent (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. added 2019-06-06
    When the Milk of Human Kindness Becomes a Luxury Good.Inmaculada de Melo-Martin - 2017 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (1):159-165.
    A new reprogenetic technology, mitochondrial replacement, is making its appearance and, unsurprisingly given its promise to wash off our earthly stains --or at least the scourges of sexual reproduction--, John Harris finds only reasons to celebrate this new scientific feat.1 In fact, he finds mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) so “unreservedly welcome” that he believes those who reject them suffer from “a large degree of desperation and not a little callousness.”2 Believing myself to be neither desperate nor callous, but finding myself (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. added 2019-06-06
    Ethics: Fallacies in the Arguments for New Technology: The Case of Proton Therapy.B. Hofmann - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (11):684-687.
    In a seminal article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Søren Holm and Tuja Takala analysed two protechnology arguments in bioethics: the hopeful principle and the automatic escalator. They showed how these arguments relate to problematic arguments such as the precautionary principle and the empirical slippery slope argument, and argued that they should be used with great caution. The present article investigates the recent debate on proton beam therapy, where the hopeful principle and the automatic escalator are identified. However, the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  15. added 2019-06-06
    Review of The Case Against Perfection. [REVIEW]Keith Abney - 2008 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 2 (3).
    Sandel's book argues against genetic enhancement as an illegitimate expression of a drive to human mastery and a rejection of the proper appreciation of the gift of life. His view combines bad theology with bad virtue ethics, and exemplifies the problem of status quo bias in ethics.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. added 2019-06-06
    Non-Therapeutic Modification and Self-Interest: Reply to Schramme: Letter to the Editor.Benjamin L. Curtis - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (8):455-456.
    In this article I reply to Thomas Schramme's argument that there are no good reasons for the prohibition of severe forms of voluntary non-therapeutic body modification. I argue that on paternalistic assumptions there is, in fact, a perfectly good reason.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. added 2019-06-06
    The New Rational Therapy: A Response to Martin. [REVIEW]Elliot D. Cohen - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):135-140.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. added 2019-06-06
    Gene Therapy and Ethics: Edited by A Nordgren. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1999, 208 SEK, Pp 175. ISBN 915544640X. [REVIEW]K. Lippert-Rasmussen - 2002 - Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (1):58-58.
  19. added 2019-06-06
    Human Germline Gene Therapy: Scientific, Moral and Political Issues: David B Resnik, Holly B Steinkraus and Pamela J Langer, Austin, Texas, R G Landes Company, 1999, 189 Pages, US$99.00 (Hb). [REVIEW]Nils Holtug - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (1):67-68.
  20. added 2019-06-06
    “Whose Perfection is It Anyway?”: A Virtuous Consideration of Enhancement.J. F. Keenan - 1999 - Christian Bioethics 5 (2):104-120.
    Discussions of genetic enhancements often imply deep suspicions about human desires to manipulate or enhance the course of our future. These unspoken assumptions about the arrogance of the quest for perfection are at odds with the normally hopeful resonancy we find in contemporary theology. The author argues that these fears, suspicions and accusations are misplaced. The problem lies not with the question of whether we should pursue perfection, but rather what perfection we are pursuing. The author argues that perfection, properly (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21. added 2019-06-06
    Genetic Enhancement and Theosis: Two Models of Therapy.H. T. Engelhardt - 1999 - Christian Bioethics 5 (2):197-199.
    The author argues that to think theologically about genetic enhancement is to think prayerfully about how to locate all one's uses of medicine, recognizing that they must all be lodged in the Christian struggle to holiness. He is critical of the essays in this issue because they often appear to take on a scholastic life of their own outside of the all-consuming struggle to salvation of Christians across the millennia.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22. added 2019-06-06
    Human Genetic Enhancement: Is It Really a Matter of Perfection? A Dialog With Hanson, Keenan and Shuman.P. Taboada - 1999 - Christian Bioethics 5 (2):183-196.
    The author reviews the arguments made by Mark Hanson, James Keenan, S.J., and Joel Shuman in this issue. In the first section, she argues that they offer a significant contribution toward an understanding of the inner logic of a new trend in contemporary medicine, genetic engineering. However, she criticizes the authors for relying excessively on procedural guidelines and for failing to bring the practical realities of medicine and technology to bear on theory. She argues that more concrete guidelines, which are (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. added 2019-06-06
    Thinking Theologically About Reproductive and Genetic Enhancements: The Challenge.G. Khushf - 1999 - Christian Bioethics 5 (2):154-182.
    Current philosophical and legal bioethical reflection on reprogenetics provides little more than a rationalization of the interests of science. There are two reasons for this. First, bioethicists attempt to address ethical issues in a “language of precision” that characterizes science, and this works against analogical and narratological modes of discourse that have traditionally provided guidance for understanding human nature and purpose. Second, the current ethical and legal debate is framed by a public/private distinction that banishes robust norms to the private (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. added 2019-06-06
    Genetic Therapy, Person‐Regarding Reasons and the Determination of Identity — A Reply to Robert Elliot.Ingmar Persson - 1997 - Bioethics 11 (2):161-169.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. added 2019-06-06
    Genetic Modification of Animals: Should Science and Ethics Be Integrated?Henk Verhoog - 1996 - The Monist 79 (2):247-263.
    In this article I will explore the problem of 'forbidden knowledge' on the basis of my own experience in the Netherlands with the development of a regulative framework for all research involving the production and use of genetically modified animals. Although it is not yet definitely settled, this regulative framework is based on what is called the 'no, unless'-principle. The 'no, unless' policy has been defined by Brom and Schroten in the following way.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26. added 2019-06-06
    Genetic Therapy, Identity and the Person‐Regarding Reasons.Ingmar Persson - 1995 - Bioethics 9 (1):16-31.
    It has been argued that there can be no person‐regarding reasons for practising genetic therapy, since it affects identity and causes to exist an individual who would not otherwise have existed. And there can be no such reasons for causing somebody to exist because existing cannot be better for an individual than never existing. In the present paper, both of these claims are denied. It is contended, first, that in practically all significant cases genetic therapy will not affect the identity (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27. added 2019-06-06
    Identity and the Ethics of Gene Therapy.Robert Elliot - 1993 - Bioethics 7 (1):27-40.
  28. added 2019-06-06
    Ethical Aspects of Human Germ‐Line Gene Therapy.Maurice A. M. de Wachter - 1993 - Bioethics 7 (2-3):166-177.
  29. added 2019-06-06
    Man — Genetics — Ethics.I. T. Frolov - 1976 - Dialectics and Humanism 3 (3/4):121-130.
  30. added 2019-05-10
    Can Attitudes Toward Genome Editing Better Inform Cognitive Enhancement Policy?Davide Battisti, Alessandra Gasparetto & Mario Picozzi - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 10 (1):59-61.
    The article by Conrad et al. (AJOB Neuroscience, 2019, 10:1) does not take into account another, still hypothetical, procedure for cognitive enhancement (CE) which would be appropriate to consider in the surveys, i.e. the possibility to genetically enhance the cognitive abilities of a future individual using genome editing techniques. In this case, the conclusions of the article in the context of the “self-others difference” and “safety/naturalness” would be questioned. In fact, the results of the hypothetical surveys with the variant “genome (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31. added 2019-03-07
    The Trouble With Moral Enhancement.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2018 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83:19-33.
    Proponents of moral enhancement believe that we should pursue and apply biotechnological means to morally enhance human beings, as failing to do so is likely to lead to humanity's demise. Unsurprisingly, these proposals have generated a substantial amount of debate about the moral permissibility of using such interventions. Here I put aside concerns about the permissibility of moral enhancement and focus on the conceptual and evidentiary grounds for the moral enhancement project. I argue that such grounds are quite precarious.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. added 2019-02-26
    The Trust Game CRISPR for Human Germline Editing Unsettles Scientists and Society.Matthias Braun & Darian Meacham - 2019 - EMBO Reports 20 (2).
  33. added 2018-12-14
    Review of Colin Farrelly, Genetic Ethics. [REVIEW]Jonathan Anomaly - 2018 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews:X-Y.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. added 2018-09-28
    Review of John Harris, How to Be Good: The Possibility of Moral Enhancement, Oxford University Press, 2016. [REVIEW]Daniel Moseley - 2018 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2018.
    John Harris's influential work on human enhancement has advocated the development, use, and exchange of human enhancement technologies. The types of enhancements that are of interest are biomedical interventions that are used to improve human capacities beyond what is necessary to achieve or maintain health or "normal functioning". This new book is unique in Harris's body of work in that it takes a more cautious stance regarding moral enhancements than he has taken toward other forms of human enhancement, such as (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. added 2018-06-04
    Der „kontrollierte individuelle Heilversuch“ als neues Instrument bei der klinischen Erstanwendung risikoreicher Therapieformen – Ethische Analyse einer somatischen Gentherapie für das Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrom.Thomas Heinemann, Bert Heinrichs, Christoph Klein, Michael Fuchs & Dietmar Hübner - 2006 - Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft Und Ethik 11 (1):153-199.
    Das Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrom (WAS), ein genetisch bedingter Immundefekt mit klinischer Manifestation im Kleinkindalter, wird voraussichtlich in näherer Zukunft erstmals versuchsweise durch eine somatische Gentherapie behandelt werden. Im vor- liegenden Beitrag werden die wichtigsten medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakten dieses Krankheitsbildes sowie die bisherigen Erfahrungen mit somatischen Gentherapien bei anderen Immunmangelsyndromen ausführlich dargestellt. Sodann erfolgt eine ethische Analyse eines möglichen gentherapeutischen Eingriffs bei WAS-Patienten, bei der die spezifischen Aspekte des Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndroms – insbesondere die fast ausschließliche Betroffenheit von Kindern sowie die unterschiedlich aussichtsreiche Alter- nativoption einer (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36. added 2018-06-01
    How Should One Live? An Introduction to Ethics and Moral Reasoning.Bradley Thames - 2018 - San Diego, CA, USA: Bridgepoint Education.
    This book provides an entry-level introduction to philosophical ethics, theories of moral reasoning, and selected issues in applied ethics. Chapter 1 describes the importance of philosophical approaches to ethical issues, the general dialectical form of moral reasoning, and the broad landscape of moral philosophy. Chapter 2 presents egoism and relativism as challenges to the presumed objectivity and unconditionality of morality. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 discuss utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, respectively. Each chapter begins with a general overview of the (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. added 2018-03-15
    Germline Edits: Trust Ethics Review Process.Julian Savulescu, Chris Gyngell & Thomas Douglas - 2015 - Nature 520.
    Summary: Edward Lanphier and colleagues contend that human germline editing is an unethical technology because it could have unpredictable effects on future generations. In our view, such misgivings do not justify their proposed moratorium.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. added 2018-03-06
    Identità e determinismo genetico. Bioetica e filosofia delle scienze genetiche.Gregory Tranchesi - 2013 - Edizioni Nuova Prhomos.
  39. added 2018-02-17
    Chimeras, Moral Status, and Public Policy: Implications of the Abortion Debate for Public Policy on Human/Nonhuman Chimera Research.Robert Streiffer - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):238-250.
    Researchers are increasingly interested in creating chimeras by transplanting human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) into animals early in development. One concern is that such research could confer upon an animal the moral status of a normal human adult but then impermissibly fail to accord it the protections it merits in virtue of its enhanced moral status. Understanding the public policy implications of this ethical conclusion, though, is complicated by the fact that claims about moral status cannot play an unfettered role (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  40. added 2018-02-17
    Gene Therapy Oversight: Lessons for Nanobiotechnology.Susan M. Wolf, Rishi Gupta & Peter Kohlhepp - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (4):659-684.
    Oversight of human gene transfer research presents an important model with potential application to oversight of nanobiology research on human participants. Gene therapy oversight adds centralized federal review at the National Institutes of Health's Office of Biotechnology Activities and its Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to standard oversight of human subjects research at the researcher's institution and at the federal level by the Office for Human Research Protections. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research oversees human gene (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  41. added 2018-01-12
    Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement.Walter Veit - 2018 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (1):75-92.
    Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful albeit unrealistic. However, recent scienti c breakthroughs in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally. In 2001, when preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), enabled parents to select between multiple embryos, Julian Savulescu introduced the principle of procreative bene cence (PPB), stating that parents have the obligations to choose (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  42. added 2018-01-10
    Ethical Principles for the Use of Human Cellular Biotechnologies.Paul Root Wolpe & Karen S. Rommelfanger - 2017 - Nature Biotechnology 35:1050–1058.
    Recent developments in bioengineering promise the possibility of new diagnostic and treatment strategies, novel industrial processes, and innovative approaches to thorny problems in fields such as nutrition, agriculture, and biomanufacturing. As modern genetics has matured and developed technologies of increasing power, debates over risk assessments and proper applications of the technology, and over who should have decision-making power over such issues, have become more prominent. Recently, some scientists have advocated that ethicists “step out of the way,” whereas others have called (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. added 2017-08-02
    Bioconservatism, Partiality, and the Human-Nature Objection to Enhancement.Pugh Jonathan, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu - 2016 - The Monist 99 (4):406-422.
    “Bioconservatives” in the human enhancement debate endorse the conservative claim that we should reject the use of biotechnologies that enhance natural human capacities. However, they often ground their objections to enhancement with contestable claims about human nature that are also in tension with other common tenets of conservatism. We argue that bioconservatives could raise a more plausible objection to enhancement by invoking a strain of conservative thought developed by G.A. Cohen. Although Cohen’s conservatism is not sufficient to fully revive the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44. added 2017-08-02
    Autonomy, Natality and Freedom: A Liberal Re-Examination of Habermas in the Enhancement Debate.Jonathan Pugh - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (3):142-152.
    Jurgen Habermas has argued that carrying out pre-natal germline enhancements would be inimical to the future child's autonomy. In this article, I suggest that many of the objections that have been made against Habermas' arguments by liberals in the enhancement debate misconstrue his claims. To explain why, I begin by explaining how Habermas' view of personal autonomy confers particular importance to the agent's embodiment and social environment. In view of this, I explain that it is possible to draw two arguments (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45. added 2017-07-08
    Designing Babies: Morally Permissible Ways to Modify the Human Genome1.Nicholas Agar - 1995 - Bioethics 9 (1):1-15.
    My focus in this paper is the question of the moral acceptability of attempts to modify the human genome. Much of the debate in this area has revolved around the distinction between supposedly therapeutic modification on the one hand, and eugenic modification on the other. In the first part of the paper I reject some recent arguments against genetic engineering. In the second part I seek to distinguish between permissible and impermissible forms of intervention in such a way that does (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. added 2017-02-18
    The Ethics of Genetic Intervention in Human Embryos: Assessing Jürgen Habermas's Approach.Fischer Enno - 2016 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 30 (1):79-95.
    In the near future we may be able to manipulate human embryos through genetic intervention. Jürgen Habermas has argued against the development of technologies which could make such intervention possible. His argument has received widespread criticism among bioethicists. These critics argue that Habermas's argument relies on implausible assumptions about human nature. Moreover, they challenge Habermas's claim that genetic intervention adds something new to intergenerational relationships pointing out that parents have already strong control over their children through education. In this paper (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. added 2017-02-15
    Three Harms of 'Conversion' Therapy.Candice Delmas - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 5 (1):22-23.
  48. added 2017-02-15
    Response to “Dimensions and Classification of Genetic Interventions in the Human Genome” by Matthew D. Bacchetta and Gerd Richter - Misinterpretations and Misrepresentations.Donald S. Rubenstein - 1998 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (1):90-93.
    In responding to our paper “Germ-Line Therapy to Cure Mitochondrial Disease: Protocol and Ethics of In Vitro Ovum Nuclear Transplantation” , Matthew D. Bacchetta and Gerd Richter include several misinterpretations and misrepresentations of our IVONT protocol and structure for ethical debate. We actively invited scrutiny of our IVONT protocol; however, for us to seriously respond to criticisms of our publication, we suggest respectfully that those who critique the article critique the protocol that we proposed. First and foremost, we certainly do (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. added 2017-02-15
    Foreseeable Applications of Gene Therapy Into Somatic and Germinal Cells.Luigi D. Notarangelo, Fabio Candotti SilviaGiliani & G. Alberto - 1994 - Primum Non Nocere Today: A Symposium on Pediatric Bioethics: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pediatric Bioethics, Pavia, 26-28 May 1994 1071:127.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. added 2017-02-15
    Where Docs Draw the Line.Hilde Lindemann Nelson - 1993 - Hastings Center Report 23 (5):3.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 395