Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):514-523 (2019)

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing. The Nuffield report was notable for finding that HGE could be morally permissible, even in cases of human enhancement. In this paper, we summarise the findings of the Nuffield Council report, critically examine the guiding principles they endorse and suggest ways in which the guiding principles could be strengthened. While we support the approach taken by the Nuffield Council, we argue that detailed consideration of the moral implications of genome editing yields much stronger conclusions than they draw. Rather than being merely ‘morally permissible’, many instances of genome editing will be moral imperatives.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-105084
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,379
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas & Savulescu Julian - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):498-513.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Goldilocks and the Two Principles. A Response to Gyngell Et Al.Peter Mills - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):524-525.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Review.Alan H. Berger - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):481-482.


Added to PP index

Total views
37 ( #309,292 of 2,519,690 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #116,860 of 2,519,690 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes