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 CRISPER/cas9-Human Germline Gene Editing: Study of Islamic Ethical and Scientific Perspectives

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Yasir Farooq
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Human Stem Cells ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Stem Cells Therapy ◽  
Human Germline Gene Editing

The advancement of technology in medical science has just changed human lives, as well as biomedical innovations are making human lives better but lesser harmful. In past, scientifically and religiously approved techniques such as testtube baby & human stem cells therapy have served humanity especially infertile and connubial parents. Nowadays, the advancement in CRISPER/cas9 technology which is about human germline gene editing, just rekindled the religious and ethical concerns, especially in Islamic perspectives. Although, human germline genome editing and modification have been started decades ago claims about disease prevention strategies have raised many religious concerns such as tampering with God’s creation, human dignity, safety and efficacy of the technology, and human genetic enhancement. This kind of editing might result in inheritable changes in the human genome. So, questions about its status whether it should be allowed or not, need deep & serious study from religious and ethical perspectives. This study will encompass Islamic perspectives on these concerns in the light of ethical principles of Islam while considering and assessing the permissibility or lawful status of CRISPR/Cas9 mediated human germline gene editing. This research study also aims to address the controversial discussions among Muslim jurists regarding human germline gene editing as well as to comprise the related ethical regulations and concerns.

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.

scholarly journals Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Nordgren
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Human Germline Gene Editing ◽  
First Time ◽  
Modest Level

AbstractHuman germline gene editing is often debated in hypothetical terms: if it were safe and efficient, on what further conditions would it then be ethically acceptable? This paper takes another course. The key question is: how can scientists reduce uncertainty about safety and efficiency to a level that may justify initiation of first-time clinical trials? The only way to proceed is by well-designed preclinical studies. However, what kinds of investigation should preclinical studies include and what specific conditions should they satisfy in order to be considered well-designed? It is argued that multispecies and multigenerational animal studies are needed as well as human embryo editing without implantation. In order to be possible to translate to first-time clinical trials, animal studies need to satisfy strict conditions of validity. Moreover, embryo studies intended for translation to first-time clinical trials need to correspond to the animal studies in experimental design (with exception of implantation). Only in this way can uncertainty about risk for harm (safety) and prospect of benefit (efficiency) in first-time clinical trials be reduced to a modest level. If uncertainty is not reduced to such a level, first-time clinical trials in germline gene editing should not be initiated.

Ethical issues raised by intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene modification

2020 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106095
Author(s):  
Austen Yeager
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Gene Modification

As research involving gene editing continues to advance, we are headed in the direction of being able to modify the human germline. Should we reach a point where an argument can be made that the benefits of preventing unborn children and future generations from inheriting genetic conditions that cause tremendous suffering outweigh the risks associated with altering the human germline, the next step will be to design clinical trials using this technology in humans. These clinical trials will likely require careful follow-up and monitoring of future generations born with altered genes. This paper addresses some of the ethical issues raised by intergenerational monitoring and sets out to show that these issues can be avoided with careful consideration and clinical trial design.

Human Editing: From Geneticization to New Forms of Equality and Identity

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Olga Popova
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Human Species ◽  
Species Identity ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Therapeutic Context ◽  
The Veil

The article analyzes a number of philosophical problems caused by the emergence of the new genetic engineering tool CRISPR/Cas9 and the possible legitimization of genetic engineering technologies, in general. The non-therapeutic context of the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 tool is considered, and in this context the problem of future generations' rights and human species identity is analyzed. Using J. Rawls' idea of the “veil of ignorance”, the problem of the distribution of genetic advantages is analyzed and possible trajectories for its solution are demonstrated. The link between genetic enhancement and new forms of biosociality and inequality is presented. It is concluded that the rights of future generations in the competition of opposing ethical-philosophical attitudes will be problematized both within the framework of defending the attitude to the naturalness and in the context of defending human genetic modification.

Biocentrism, Religion and Synthetic Biology

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-35
Author(s):  
Robin Attfield
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Moral Standing ◽  
Human Species ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Human Interventions

Biocentrism maintains that all living creatures have moral standing, but need not claim that all have equal moral significance. This moral standing extends to organisms generated through human interventions, whether by conventional breeding, genetic engineering, or synthetic biology. Our responsibilities with regard to future generations are relevant to non-human species as well as future human generations. Likewise, the Precautionary Principle raises objections to the generation of serious or irreversible harm or changes to the quality of human or non-human life, and needs to be applied when the introduction of synthetic biotechnology is envisaged. Consideration of this Principle supplements the problems raised for synthetic biology from a biocentric perspective. The bearing of biocentrism on religions is also considered, together with contrasting views about science, religion and the creation of life.

scholarly journals Genetic engineering and gene manipulation: the right (of future generations) to surprise

2021 ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Maria K. Chorianopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Gene Manipulation ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Genetic engineering is currently at the forefront of biotechnological innovation and aspires to change once and for ever the way we understand and handle human nature. Especially the growth of Eugenics makes us visualise a different world, where humanity will not only dispense itself from the detrimental gene mutations that are accountable for fatal illnesses, but will also ameliorate through prenatal gene manipulation. In the first part of this paper, I will introduce the responsibility-oriented morality of Hans Jonas, who supports vividly all efforts of negative Eugenics but seems sceptical about genetic enhancement, since on the one hand we have no right to decide on behalf of our descendants on what is best for them, and on the other due to his view that the abundance of our genetic stock should not hang on parents’ desires. In the second part, I will correlate these oppositions with Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality”. Not only do Jonas and Habermas invoke it with applause; “natality” also discloses the very essence of birth, namely that each newborn epitomises total unpredictability and promises to renew human affairs. So, gene manipulation for enhancement purposes seems to encroach on “natality’s” dominion and diminish future autonomy. Finally, I will argue that, if Arendt’s conceptual frame consolidates objections to positive Eugenics, each unborn child holds a right to surprise, the content of which is not limited to an individual level but touches society and humanity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document