Heritable human genome editing: our moral responsibilities towards future generations

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-225
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Agius

The uncharted territory of genome editing technology, which can be described as the Copernican revolution of our age, presents the challenge of the trade-offs between the benefits to people now and the known unknowns concerning future dangers and risks. It is for this reason that critics of human germline modification argue that it is unethical to harvest benefits in the immediate future while causing a whirlwind in the far-distant future! The current generation has, therefore, to make sensible decisions about the research and clinical application of human gene editing technologies to prevent far-reaching deleterious impact on an indefinite number of generations yet to come. Certainly, techniques of heritable human genome editing could increase vulnerability, discrimination and division among and between generations without the guidance of social justice which is inseparable from solidarity. Since the descendants of edited human embryos may be exposed to unknown, possibly negative long-term effects, without consenting to having these risks imposed on them, the thorny issues of harm, safety and precaution are crucial to address the knowledge-gaps and uncertainties implied the clinical application of human genome editing. Thus, the intergenerational moral consciousness and conscientiousness on the benefits and risks of human genome editing have to remain vigilant and alert!

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 991-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Drabiak

This article traces the rapid progression of policy pertaining to human genome germline modifications using genome editing. It provides an overview of how one fertility physician implemented and advertised experimental techniques as part of his fertility clinic services, examines US law and policy, and assesses the impact of rhetoric influencing global policy and interpretation of the law. This article provides an in-depth examination of the medical rationale driving the acceptance of genome editing human embryos in two contexts: to cure disease and treat infertility. It describes complexities in genomics and outlines risks currently associated with genome editing, asserting the available evidence fails to demonstrate genome editing constitutes a curative therapy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-366
Author(s):  
Geetanjali Sharma

New developments in genome editing techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9, have raised significant questions before humankind. The promise of CRISPR /Cas9 lies in the ability to make precise edits in the human genome which may help prevent progeny from being born with severe genetic diseases. At the same time there are significant risks because we do not yet know about the safety of this technique or what its long-term effects are going to be. Also legitimate is the concern about potential for misuse for eugenic purposes. The scientific community is split on the question of whether research in this area should continue. This article explores answers for some of these questions in law applicable in Europe. I also attempt to answer the nagging question - if allowed to be performed, would such a technique be compliant with human dignity?


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 37-47
Author(s):  
O. Yu. Fomina

Genetic technologies are rapidly developing, which is not the case for the normative consolidation of scientific achievements and opportunities. The science aimed at improving the quality of life of people is already able to prevent many hereditary disorders by removing the «wrong» gene from the embryo DNA. Editing the human genome is not the future, but the present.It is assumed that legalization in the area of the human genome editing for preventive or therapeutic purposes is more than possible. The article analyzes the issues of the right to go to court on the ground of legal relations that arise when the human embryo genome is edited during the procedure of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and subsequently a «genetically modified» child is born.Due to the lack of detailed legal regulation of the IVF procedure, scientific research on human embryos and genome editing technology, the author does not exclude situations when successful research can be carried out as well as errors can be committed. In the latter case, it is possible to work upon «healthy» DNA elements instead of or together with «sick» elements, which endangers the life and health of not only the potential person, but also his discendants.Given that the current legislation does not determine the status of a human embryo and establishes the moment of birth as the moment of capacity, while the civil procedural capacity (that is one of the prerequisites for the right to go to a court) of an individual coincides with civil legal capacity, the future human life is deprived of any legal protection. For the same reason, other persons may not go to court in the interests of the unborn child. The article attempts to find a way out of this situation by analyzing Russian and international legislation, as well as the ECHR case law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Ya-Wen Lei

Abstract Literature on scientific controversies has inadequately attended to the impact of globalization and, more specifically, the emergence of China as a leader in scientific research. To bridge this gap in the literature, this article develops a theoretical framework to analyse global scientific controversies surrounding research in China. The framework highlights the existence of four overlapping discursive arenas: China's national public sphere and national expert sphere, the transnational public sphere and the transnational expert sphere. It then examines the struggles over inclusion/exclusion and publicity within these spheres as well as the within- and across-sphere effects of such struggles. Empirically, the article analyses the human genome editing controversy surrounding research conducted by scientists in China between 2015 and 2019. It shows how elite scientists negotiated expert–public relationships within and across the national and transnational expert spheres, how unexpected disruption at the nexus of the four spheres disrupted expert–public relationships as envisioned by elite experts, and how the Chinese state intervened to redraw the boundary between openness and secrecy at both national and transnational levels.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 567-567
Author(s):  
Gregory B. Lim

The Lancet ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 393 (10166) ◽  
pp. 26-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linqi Zhang ◽  
Ping Zhong ◽  
Xiaomei Zhai ◽  
Yiming Shao ◽  
Shan Lu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document