The Ethical Challenges of Gene Editing

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Jozef Zalot ◽  
Tadeusz Pacholczyk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Catholic Church ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetic Diseases ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Oregon Health ◽  
Life Threatening

In August 2017, researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University announced that they had successfully used a gene editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9 to repair disease-causing genes in human embryos. Some members of the scientific and medical communities have hailed the development as a way to ensure that life- threatening diseases are not passed on to future generations. But is gene editing always a good thing? The Catholic Church encourages scientific research that is ethical and serves the human good. In the future, CRISPR may be used to treat people with serious genetic diseases, such as hemophilia and sickle-cell anemia. However, for research on human beings to be ethical, it must be strictly therapeutic and must respect the dignity and sacredness of human life. Gene-editing techniques raise profound ethical challenges in both respects.

“A Life Worthy of Being Called Human”

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-332
Author(s):  
Catherine Larrère ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Environmental Ethic ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Life On Earth ◽  
Ecological Transition

“Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life on Earth.” How can we understand Jonas’ “maxim”? Is it too anthropocentric to be of any interest for an environmental ethic? Is is too limited to survival to have a moral signification in a truly human ethic? One can argue first that it is not so much anti-Kantian than that it challenges the current prevailing “presentism” and obliges us to take into consideration not only future generations, but also the context in which one anticipates these future generations to be living. Therefore, we can distinguish two different interpretations of Jonas’ maxim: in a first stage, that of sustainable development, it was understood as taking into consideration not only the needs but also the rights of future generations; in a second stage, that of an Anthropocene and ecological transition, it means that making sense of humanity implies connecting human beings to the Earth and other living beings far from opposing them.

The Demands of CRISPR’s World

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
J. Benjamin Hurlbut ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Human Life ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Technical Possibility ◽  
Human Germline Gene Editing

A growing chorus of voices is declaring that CRISPR will revolutionize the ability to control life, including human life. As genetically altering future generations becomes technically realistic, it raises the prospect of genetic enhancement and the specter of eugenics. Prominent scientists are calling for international guidelines to govern human applications of gene-editing technology. They argue that the technical possibility of human germline gene editing makes ethical deliberation urgent. Now that the technology is upon us, the time has come to ask whether we want it. Human germline genetic engineering has long been marked as a morally significant boundary, and in numerous countries it is explicitly prohibited by law. The Oviedo Convention, a legally binding treaty among twenty-nine European countries, prohibits it as a violation of human rights and dignity. Nevertheless, numerous commentators argue that prohibitions made before it was technically possible meant little, and past proscriptions must now be revised.

scholarly journals Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alix Lenia v. Hammerstein ◽  
Matthias Eggel ◽  
Nikola Biller-Andorno
Keyword(s):  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Reproductive Medicine ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Genetic Diseases ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Future Child ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Background Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a ‘last resort’ option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases. Main text This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns. Conclusion We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally (at least) as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement.

PEMAHAMAN TENTANG LINGKUNGAN BERKELANJUTAN

MODUL ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Rahayu Effendi ◽  
Hana Salsabila ◽  
Abdul Malik
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Rapid Rise ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
Sustainable Environment

The rapid rise of population, the increasing need of human beings and the development of science and technology causes the environment to be sacrificed to meet the needs of human life. Therefore, the importance of realizing a sustainable, principled environment in maintaining health and addressing ecological and ecosystem balance issues as an effort to ensure the survival of future generations. This paper discusses the sustainable environment, covering the basics of environmental sustainability that is ecology and ecosystems and accompanied by case studies aimed at providing a clearer picture of how the environment is sustainable. The purpose of this paper is to provide understanding to the community what and how the importance of environmental sustainability is so that later can be applied in real terms to create a healthy environment and ensure sustainability of the present and future

Conflicting Values, Ubuntu Philosophy and Peace Building: An African Experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-190
Author(s):  
Philip Ogo Ujomu ◽  
Anthony I. Bature
Keyword(s):  
Social Order ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Peace Building ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
African Experience ◽  
Local Case ◽  
The Social ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Violent Conflicts

AbstractThis paper studies conflict of values as triggers for social disorder. Specifically, we review the condition of negative dominant social paradigm (DSP) leading to value clashes. Value clashes are conflicts that arise from collision of ways of life, (ethnic, political, religious, etc.) thought systems and diverse uses of nature and sharing of resources. This shortfall is easily seen in egoism, corruption, disregard for the rule of law, inability to secure core human values in the social system. Using a local case study, we notice that such value disruptive tendencies pose a threat to Nigeria’s citizens, government, institutions and democracy, due to the rise of, violent conflicts and degradation of the value of human life ultimately leading to terrorism and other life-threatening challenges. It is suggested that such value clashes or clashes of values can be mitigated by a push for the sustenance of social order using some principles. The philosophical notion or principle of Ubuntu recommends the interdependence of human beings and the urgent need for a humane, compassionate and dignified approach to social living using basic democratic and moral values to deepen and widen the concept of peace and peace building.

scholarly journals Terroryzm z perspektywy nauczania trzech papieży — Jana Pawła II, Benedykta XVI i Franciszka

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-261
Author(s):  
Joanna Brzezińska
Keyword(s):  
Catholic Church ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Benedict Xvi ◽  
John Paul Ii ◽  
Personal Level ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Terrorist Acts ◽  
The Church

The aim of this study was to indicate the position taken on the phenomenon of terrorism in the teaching of the Catholic Church by three popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. It has been found that, apart from the common, unambiguously negative assessment of the analysed phenomenon by the hierarchy of the Church, each of them sets out his own observations on its nature and causes. In the teaching of John Paul II, the predominant conviction is that terrorism is an ideology of violence which spreads on the basis of technological and economic development and brings chaos on both a political and personal level. Benedict XVI states that terrorism promotes a civilisation of destruction, which above all questions the dignity of the individual, seeking their annihilation. Pope Francis, on the other hand, focuses on stressing the need for intercultural and interreligious dialogue in order to reduce the growing tensions that are the source of terrorist acts. All the Fathers of the Church, however, draw attention to the fundamental problem of the instrumental treatment of human life by terrorist organisations, for which human beings become a mere means to achieve their various aims.

Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Societal Values ◽  
Parents And Children ◽  
New Gene ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Potential Use

The potential use of CRISPR-Cas9 and other new gene editing technologies to alter the DNA of human beings raises a host of questions. Some questions are about safety: Can these technologies be deployed without posing an unreasonable risk of physical harm to current and future generations? Can all physical risks be adequately assessed and responsibly managed? Gene editing technologies also raise other, equally if not more difficult, questions that touch on deeply held, personal, cultural, and societal values: Might such technologies redefine what it means to be healthy, normal, or cherished? Might they undermine relationships between parents and children or exacerbate the gap between the haves and have-nots? The broadest form of this second kind of question about the impact of gene editing on values is the focus of this book: What might gene editing—and related technologies—mean for human flourishing? An interdisciplinary group of scholars asks age-old questions about the nature and well-being of humans in the context of revolutionary new biotechnology that has the potential to change the genetic makeup of both existing people and future generations. These authors aim to help readers engage in a conversation about the ethics of gene editing. It is through this conversation that citizens can influence laws and the distribution of funding for science and medicine; that professional leaders can shape understanding and use of gene editing and related technologies by scientists, patients, and practitioners; and that individuals can make decisions about their own lives and the lives of their families.

Frozen Embryos Are Not Research Material

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Derek McDonald ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Research Material ◽  
Frozen Embryos

At least one million human embryos are currently in cryopreservation in the United States alone. The Catholic Church expressly denounces this practice, but there is no satisfying solution. New arguments have arisen in the scientific community that these embryos should be made available for research, reflecting a utilitarian view of human life, which is counter to Catholic teaching on human dignity and must be resisted by the faithful. Instead, the solution to cryopreservation must respect the lives of these embryos and give others the opportunity to learn from and pray for them.

scholarly journals The Morality of Killing Human Embryos

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Steinbock
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Es Cells ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Embryonic Stem ◽  
The Other ◽  
Embryo Research ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Es Cell ◽  
Undifferentiated Cells

Embryonic stem cell research is morally and politically controversial because the process of deriving the embryonic stem (ES) cells kills embryos. If embryos are, as some would claim, human beings like you and me, then ES cell research is clearly impermissible. If, on the other hand, the blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells are derived are not yet human beings, but rather microscopic balls of undifferentiated cells, as others maintain, then ES cell research is probably morally permissible. Whether the research can be justified depends on such issues as its cost, chance of success, and numbers likely to benefit. But this is an issue for any research project, not just ES cell research. What makes the debate over ES cell research controversial is that it, like the debate over abortion, raises “questions that politicians cannot settle: when does human life begin, and what is the moral status of the human embryo?” This paper looks at several theories of moral status and their implications for embryo research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document