Human genome editing is not unethical, says Nuffield Council

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k3140
Author(s):  
Nigel Hawkes
Keyword(s):  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Nuffield Council

scholarly journals Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 514-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Gyngell ◽  
Hilary Bowman-Smart ◽  
Julian Savulescu
Keyword(s):  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Nuffield Council ◽  
Council Report ◽  
Guiding Principles

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing (HGE). 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.

Publics, Scientists and the State: Mapping the Global Human Genome Editing Controversy

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Ya-Wen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Scientific Controversies ◽  
Chinese State ◽  
National Expert ◽  
The Impact

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.

Human genome editing in heart disease

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 567-567
Author(s):  
Gregory B. Lim
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing

scholarly journals Open letter from Chinese HIV professionals on human genome editing

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

Regulating genome editing technologies: a comparison of expert recommendations in the U.K. and in the U.S.A.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-705
Author(s):  
Sofia Iacomussi
Keyword(s):  
Human Genome ◽  
Genome Editing ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
General Public ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Bioethical Debate ◽  
Expert Recommendations

The present paper aims to inform the bioethical debate on the regulation of human genome editing technologies with a specific focus on the role of scientific experts and their interactions with the general public in the formulation of policy. It reviews and compares two of the major contributions to this debate in the U.K. and in the U.S.A., comparing expert approaches towards regulation on genome editing technologies. The results of this analysis offer important lessons that should be appreciated in building an international regulatory framework. On the basis of these results, I conclude that the experts should embrace a socially responsible approach and encourage active public engagement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document