Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?

Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (5):1409-1423 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The bioethical principle of autonomy is problematic regarding the future of the embryo who lacks the ability to self-advocate but will develop this defining human capacity in time. Recent experiments explore the use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats /Cas9 for germline engineering in the embryo, which alters future generations. The embryo’s inability to express an autonomous decision is an obvious bioethical challenge of germline engineering. The philosopher Joel Feinberg acknowledged that autonomy is developing in children. He advocated that to reserve this future autonomy, parents should be guided to make ethical decisions that provide children with open futures. Here, Feinberg’s 1980 open future theory is extended to the human embryo in the context of CRISPR germline engineering. Although the embryo does not possess the autonomous decision-making capacity at the time of germline engineering, the parental decision to permanently change the unique genetic fabric of the embryo and subsequent generations disregards future autonomy. Therefore, germline engineering in many instances is objectionable considering Feinberg’s open future theory.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
CRISPR Becomes Clearer.Andrew W. Torrance - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (5):5-6.
Future Generations and the Justifiability of Germline Engineering.Ioana Petre - 2017 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42 (3):328-341.
Human Genetic Technology, Eugenics, and Social Justice.W. Malcolm Byrnes - 2001 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1 (4):555-581.
A Humanist Analysis of Ethical Arguments Concerning Germline Genetic Engineering.Faith Louise Lagay - 1999 - Dissertation, The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Galveston
"Playing God" and germline intervention.Ted Peters - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):365-386.
The Foundation of the Child's Right to an Open Future.Joseph Millum - 2014 - Journal of Social Philosophy 45 (4):522-538.
Human germline editing: a historical perspective.Michel Morange - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (4):34.
Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds.John Harris - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):30-34.
Genetic Engineering and the Consent of Future Persons.Martin Gunderson - 2008 - Journal of Evolution and Technology 18 (1):86-93.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-10-25

Downloads
68 (#231,141)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Can reproductive genetic manipulation save lives?G. Owen Schaefer - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (3):381-386.
Ethischer Diskurs zu Epigenetik und Genomeditierung: die Gefahr eines (epi-)genetischen Determinismus und naturwissenschaftlich strittiger Grundannahmen.Karla Karoline Sonne Kalinka Alex & Eva C. Winkler - 2021 - In Boris Fehse, Ferdinand Hucho, Sina Bartfeld, Stephan Clemens, Tobias Erb, Heiner Fangerau, Jürgen Hampel, Martin Korte, Lilian Marx-Stölting, Stefan Mundlos, Angela Osterheider, Anja Pichl, Jens Reich, Hannah Schickl, Silke Schicktanz, Jochen Taupitz, Jörn Walter, Eva Winkler & Martin Zenke (eds.), Fünfter Gentechnologiebericht: Sachstand und Perspektiven für Forschung und Anwendung. Baden-Baden, Deutschland.: Nomos. DOI: 10.5771/9783748927242. pp. 299-323.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations