Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?

Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23 (2017)

Abstract
In 2015, a flourish of “alarums and excursions” by the scientific community propelled CRISPR/Cas9 and other new gene-editing techniques into public attention. At issue were two kinds of potential gene-editing experiments in humans: those making inheritable germ-line modifications and those designed to enhance human traits beyond what is necessary for health and healing. The scientific consensus seemed to be that while research to develop safe and effective human gene editing should continue, society's moral uncertainties about these two kinds of experiments needed to be better resolved before clinical trials of either type should be attempted. In the United States, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine convened the Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical and Ethical Considerations to pursue that resolution. The committee's 2017 consensus report has been widely interpreted as “opening the door” to inheritable human genetic modification and holding a line against enhancement interventions. But on a close reading it does neither. There are two reasons for this eccentric conclusion, both of which depend upon the strength of the committee's commitment to engaging diverse public voices in the gene-editing policy-making process.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1002/hast.701
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,122
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Human Growth Hormone: The Dilemma of Expanded Use in Children.Gladys B. White - 1993 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 3 (4):401-409.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Toward Public Bioethics?Gregory E. Kaebnick - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):2-2.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas & Savulescu Julian - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):498-513.
Gene Editing, Enhancing and Women’s Role.Frida Simonstein - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4):1007-1016.
“Editing”: A Productive Metaphor for Regulating CRISPR.Ben Merriman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):62-64.
Shaping Individuality: Human Inheritable Germ Line Gene Modification.Maurizio Salvi - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (6):527-542.
Can Enhancement Be Distinguished From Prevention in Genetic Medicine?Eric T. Juengst - 1997 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (2):125-142.
Human Gene Therapy: Scientific and Ethical Considerations.W. French Anderson - 1985 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (3):275-292.
Human Gene Therapy: Why Draw a Line?W. French Anderson - 1989 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (6):681-693.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-05-25

Total views
33 ( #281,320 of 2,289,284 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #149,330 of 2,289,284 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature