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

406 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 406
  1. Human Gene Therapy: Scientific Considerations'.W. F. Anderson - forthcoming - Beauchamp, T. And Walters, L.: Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2. Bioethical Aspects of Medical Applications of Human Genome and Gene Therapy Projects in Russia.Vladimir I. Ivanov - forthcoming - Bioethics in Asia. The Proceedings of the Unesco Asian Bioethics Conference and the Who-Assisted Satellite Symposium on Medical Genetics Services.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. On Human Genome Manipulation and 'Homo Technicus': The Legal Treatment of Non-Natural Human Subjects.Tyler L. Jaynes - forthcoming - AI and Ethics.
    Although legal personality has slowly begun to be granted to non-human entities that have a direct impact on the natural functioning of human societies (given their cultural significance), the same cannot be said for computer-based intelligence systems. While this notion has not had a significantly negative impact on humanity to this point in time that only remains the case because advanced computerised intelligence systems (ACIS) have not been acknowledged as reaching human-like levels. With the integration of ACIS in medical assistive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. 8.1. Gene Therapy of Mitochondrial Diseases.Yasuo Kagawa - forthcoming - Bioethics in Asia: The Proceedings of the Unesco Asian Bioethics Conference (Abc'97) and the Who-Assisted Satellite Symposium on Medical Genetics Services, 3-8 Nov, 1997 in Kobe/Fukui, Japan, 3rd Murs Japan International Symposium, 2nd Congress of the Asi.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Genetic Engineering: No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed.Ken Knisely, Peter Keating & Rhoda Perozzi - forthcoming - DVD.
    What are the ethical implications of our use of new methods and tools for reading and recoding our genetic information? What is the state of our knowledge of the human genome, including the connection between certain genes and diseases? What are some possible moral guidelines for fiddling around with the immense genetic archive within each of us? Do we - as individuals and as a species - have the right to do so? With Peter Keating and Rhoda Perozzi.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Genetic Enhancement of Families.Glenn McGee - forthcoming - Pragmatic Bioethics.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7. The Ethics of Generating Posthumans.Trevor Stammers - forthcoming - London, UK: Bloomsbury.
    The first book to explore the responsibilities owed to and the ethics of the relationships between posthumans and their creators.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Human Genetics and Genetic Enhancement.Peter Turnpenny & John Bryant - forthcoming - Bioethics for Scientists:241--264.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Cognitive Enhancement and Network Effects: How Individual Prosperity Depends on Group Traits.Jonathan Anomaly & Garett Jones - 2020 - Philosophia (5):1-16.
    A central debate in bioethics is whether parents should try to influence the genetic basis of their children’s traits. We argue that the case for using mate selection, embryo selection, and other interventions to enhance heritable traits like intelligence is strengthened by the fact that they seem to have positive network effects. These network effects include increased cooperation in collective action problems, which contributes to social trust and prosperity. We begin with an overview of evidence for these claims, and then (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Navigating the Future in a Sea of Crispr Uncertainty.Constance M. Bertka - 2020 - Zygon 55 (2):444-458.
    Humanity's toolkit for altering the world we live in now includes CRISPR. Through an evolutionary process, bacteria acquired a way to protect themselves from an invading virus, making their immediate future more secure. In human hands, this powerful genome‐editing tool offers the potential to impact, at a breathtaking rate, not only our own evolutionary future, but the future of other life on this planet. Ethical concerns about altering genomes are not new, but the birth of two CRISPR gene‐edited babies last (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. 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 for SCD. For instance, the second argument argues that conducting this gene therapy research would improve the relationship between (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. 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  
  13. The Theological Debate Over Human Enhancement: An Empirical Case Study of a Mediating Organization.John H. Evans - 2020 - Zygon 55 (3):615-637.
  14. Can Reproductive Genetic Manipulation Save Lives?G. Owen Schaefer - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (3):381-386.
    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  
  15. Recensione di "Siamo Hardwired? di Clark & Grunstein Oxford (2000) (recensione rivista 2019).Michael Richard Starks - 2020 - In Benvenuti all'inferno sulla Terra: Bambini, Cambiamenti climatici, Bitcoin, Cartelli, Cina, Democrazia, Diversità, Disgenetica, Uguaglianza, Pirati Informatici, Diritti umani, Islam, Liberalismo, Prosperità, Web, Caos, Fame, Malattia, Violenza, Intellige. Las Vegas, NV, USA: Reality Press. pp. 84-86.
    Questa è un'eccellente revisione delle interazioni gene/ambiente sul comportamento e, nonostante sia un po' datata, è una lettura facile e utile. Iniziano con studi gemelli che mostrano l'impatto travolgente della genetica sul comportamento. Notano gli studi sempre più noti di Judith Harris che estendono e riassumono i fatti che l'ambiente domestico condiviso non ha quasi alcun effetto sul comportamento e che i bambini adottati crescono fino ad essere diversi dai loro fratellastri e sorelle come le persone scelte a caso. Un (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Rezension von "Sind wir fest verdrahtet? " (Are We Hardwired?) von Clark & Grunstein (2000) (Überprüfung überarbeitet 2019).Michael Richard Starks - 2020 - In Willkommen in der Hölle auf Erden: Babys, Klimawandel, Bitcoin, Kartelle, China, Demokratie, Vielfalt, Dysgenie, Gleichheit, Hacker, Menschenrechte, Islam, Liberalismus, Wohlstand, Internet, Chaos, Hunger, Krankheit, Gewalt, Künstliche Intelligenz, Krieg. Las Vegas, NV, USA: Reality Press. pp. 91-94.
    Dies ist eine ausgezeichnete Überprüfung der Gen-/Umgebungsinteraktionen auf das Verhalten und ist, obwohl sie etwas veraltet ist, eine einfache und lohnende Lektüre. Sie beginnen mit Zwillingsstudien, die den überwältigenden Einfluss der Genetik auf das Verhalten zeigen. Sie stellen die immer bekannter werdenden Studien von Judith Harris fest, die die Fakten erweitern und zusammenfassen, dass die gemeinsame häusliche Umgebung fast keinen Einfluss auf das Verhalten hat und dass adoptierte Kinder so anders wachsen als ihre Stiefbrüder und -schwestern wie zufällig ausgewählte Menschen. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18. 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  
  19. The Trust Game CRISPR for Human Germline Editing Unsettles Scientists and Society.Matthias Braun & Darian Meacham - 2019 - EMBO Reports 20 (2).
  20. 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   1 citation  
  21. Habermas and the Question of Bioethics.Hille Haker - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (4):61-86.
    In The Future of Human Nature, Jürgen Habermas raises the question of whether the embryonic genetic diagnosis and genetic modification threatens the foundations of the species ethics that underlies current understandings of morality. While morality, in the normative sense, is based on moral interactions enabling communicative action, justification, and reciprocal respect, the reification involved in the new technologies may preclude individuals to uphold a sense of the undisposability of human life and the inviolability of human beings that is necessary for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. 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  
  23. Genomic Obsolescence: What Constitutes an Ontological Threat to Human Nature?Michal Klincewicz & Lily Frank - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (7):39-40.
  24. Why is an Egg Donor a Genetic Parent, but Not a Mitochondrial Donor?Monika Piotrowska - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (3):488-498.
    What’s the basis for considering an egg donor a genetic parent but not a mitochondrial donor? I will argue that a closer look at the biological facts will not give us an answer to this question because the process by which one becomes a genetic parent, i.e., the process of reproduction, is not a concept that can be settled by looking. It is, rather, a concept in need of philosophical attention. The details of my argument will rest on recent developments (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25. 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   2 citations  
  26. Should Parents Genetically Engineer Their Children?Walter Veit - 2019 - Psychology Today.
    Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful, albeit unrealistic. However, recent scientific developments in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. 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  
  28. Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection.Jonny Anomaly - 2018 - Monash Bioethics Review 35:24-35.
  29. 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  
  30. The Composite Redesign of Humanity’s Nature: A Work in Process.Lantz Miller - 2018 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 39 (2):157-164.
    One of the most salient contemporary concerns in academic debates and pop culture alike is the extent to which new technologies may re-cast Homo sapiens. Species members may find themselves encased in a type of existence they deem to be wanting in comparison with their present form, even if the promised form was assured to be better. Plausibly, the concern is not merely fear of change or of the unknown, but rather it arises out of individuals’ general identification with what (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. 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  
  32. 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  
  33. 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   5 citations  
  34. 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   4 citations  
  35. Is Mitochondrial Donation Germ‐Line Gene Therapy? Classifications and Ethical Implications.J. Newson Ainsley & Wrigley Anthony - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (1):55-67.
    The classification of techniques used in mitochondrial donation, including their role as purported germ-line gene therapies, is far from clear. These techniques exhibit characteristics typical of a variety of classifications that have been used in both scientific and bioethics scholarship. This raises two connected questions, which we address in this paper: how should we classify mitochondrial donation techniques?; and what ethical implications surround such a classification? First, we outline how methods of genetic intervention, such as germ-line gene therapy, are typically (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  36. Ethics of Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: A Habermasian Perspective.César Palacios‐González - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (1):27-36.
    Jürgen Habermas is regarded as a central bioconservative commentator in the debate on the ethics of human prenatal genetic manipulations. While his main work on this topic, The Future of Human Nature, has been widely examined in regard to his position on prenatal genetic enhancement, his arguments regarding prenatal genetic therapeutic interventions have for the most part been overlooked. In this work I do two things. First, I present the three necessary conditions that Habermas establishes for a prenatal genetic manipulation (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  37. Defeaters to Best Interests Reasoning in Genetic Enhancement.Sruthi Rothenfluch - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (11):2845-2869.
    Pre-natal genetic enhancement affords us unprecedented capacity to shape our skills, talents, appearance and perhaps subsequently the quality of our lives in terms of overall happiness, success and wellbeing. Despite its powerful appeal, some have raised important and equally persuasive concerns against genetic enhancement. Sandel has argued that compassion and humility, themselves grounded in the unpredictability of talents and skills, would be lost. Habermas has argued that genetically altered individuals will see their lives as dictated by their parents’ design and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. 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  
  39. 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  
  40. 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  
  41. 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  
  42. CRISPR as a Driving Force: The Model T of Biotechnology.Carlos Mariscal & Angel Petropanagos - 2016 - Monash Bioethics Review 34 (2):1-16.
    The CRISPR system for gene editing can break, repair, and replace targeted sections of DNA. Although CRISPR gene editing has important therapeutic potential, it raises several ethical concerns. Some bioethicists worry CRISPR is a prelude to a dystopian future, while others maintain it should not be feared because it is analogous to past biotechnologies. In the scientific literature, CRISPR is often discussed as a revolutionary technology. In this paper we unpack the framing of CRISPR as a revolutionary technology and contrast (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. What Is the Value of Three-Parent IVF?Tina Rulli - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (4):38-47.
    In February 2016, the Institute of Medicine released a report, commissioned by the United States Food and Drug Administration, on the ethical and social-policy implications of so-called three-parent in vitro fertilization. The IOM endorses commencement of clinical trials on three-parent IVF, subject to some initial limitations. Also called mitochondrial replacement or transfer, three-parent IVF is an intervention comprising two distinct procedures in which the genetic materials of three people—the DNA of the father and mother and the mitochondrial DNA of an (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  44. Editing the Genome of the Human Germline: May Cool Heads Prevail.Eli Y. Adashi & I. Glenn Cohen - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):40-42.
  45. Science and Values.Matthew J. Barker - 2015 - Eugenics Archive.
  46. 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  
  47. Stocking the Genetic Supermarket: Reproductive Genetic Technologies and Collective Action Problems.Chris Gyngell & Thomas Douglas - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (4):241-250.
    Reproductive genetic technologies allow parents to decide whether their future children will have or lack certain genetic predispositions. A popular model that has been proposed for regulating access to RGTs is the ‘genetic supermarket’. In the genetic supermarket, parents are free to make decisions about which genes to select for their children with little state interference. One possible consequence of the genetic supermarket is that collective action problems will arise: if rational individuals use the genetic supermarket in isolation from one (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  48. CRISPR-Cas Gene Editing to Cure Serious Diseases: Treat the Patient, Not the Germ Line.Ante S. Lundberg & Rodger Novak - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):38-40.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49. Anticipating the Ultimate Innovation, Volitional Evolution: Can It Not Be Promoted or Attempted Responsibly?Lantz Fleming Miller - 2015 - Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (3):280-300.
    Theaspirationforvolitionalevolution,orhumanevolutiondirectedbyhumansthemselves,has increased in philosophical, scientific, technical, and commercial literature. The prospect of shaping the very being who is the consumer of all other innovations offers great commercial potential, one to which all other innovations would in effect be subservient. Actually an amalgam of projected technical/commercial developments, this prospective innovation has practical and ethical ramifications. However, because it is often discussed in a scientific way (specifically that of evolutionary theory), it first calls for examination in terms of common scientific approaches to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50. 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  
1 — 50 / 406