View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

33 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
  1. added 2019-06-27
    Cloning Centering at Egoism.Yusuke Kaneko - 2019 - The Basis : The Annual Bulletin of Research Center for Liberal Education 9:245-260.
    Cloning research caught a great deal of attention when Dolly the sheep was born (§4). While some fear surrounded the attainment (§§14-15), Wilmutʼs research itself has grown well, providing a less vicious manner to gain ES cells (§12). In this article, we review the progress of cloning research along with the concern of medical circles about its application to reproductive cloning, that is to say, making replicas of human beings (§§16-21). Note that all the content is ascribed to the author (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. added 2019-06-26
    Toward Realism About Genetic Enhancement.G. Owen Schaefer - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (19):28-30.
    This is a commentary on Sparrow (2019), "Yesterday's Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence - and Why It Matters." I express skepticism that genetic enhancements will advance rapidly and universal, which in turn makes obsolescence unlikely. Enhancement is still possible, but more modest in its likely impact.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. added 2019-06-26
    Genomic Obsolescence: What Constitutes an Ontological Threat to Human Nature?Michal Klincewicz & Lily Frank - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (7):39-40.
    Volume 19, Issue 7, July 2019, Page 39-40.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. added 2019-06-14
    Resisting the Temptation of Perfection.Joseph Tham - 2017 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (1):51-62.
    With the advance of CRISPR technology, parents will be tempted to create superior offspring who are healthier, smarter, and stronger. In addition to the fact that many of these procedures are considered immoral for Catholics, they could change human nature in radical and possibly disastrous ways. This article focuses on the question of human perfectionism. First, by considering the relationship between human nature and technology, it analyzes whether such advances can improve human nature in addition to curing diseases. Next, it (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. added 2019-06-06
    When the Milk of Human Kindness Becomes a Luxury Good.Inmaculada de Melo-Martin - 2017 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (1):159-165.
    A new reprogenetic technology, mitochondrial replacement, is making its appearance and, unsurprisingly given its promise to wash off our earthly stains --or at least the scourges of sexual reproduction--, John Harris finds only reasons to celebrate this new scientific feat.1 In fact, he finds mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) so “unreservedly welcome” that he believes those who reject them suffer from “a large degree of desperation and not a little callousness.”2 Believing myself to be neither desperate nor callous, but finding myself (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6. added 2019-03-07
    The Trouble With Moral Enhancement.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2018 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83:19-33.
    Proponents of moral enhancement believe that we should pursue and apply biotechnological means to morally enhance human beings, as failing to do so is likely to lead to humanity's demise. Unsurprisingly, these proposals have generated a substantial amount of debate about the moral permissibility of using such interventions. Here I put aside concerns about the permissibility of moral enhancement and focus on the conceptual and evidentiary grounds for the moral enhancement project. I argue that such grounds are quite precarious.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. added 2019-02-26
    The Trust Game CRISPR for Human Germline Editing Unsettles Scientists and Society.Matthias Braun & Darian Meacham - 2019 - EMBO Reports 20 (2).
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2018-06-04
    Der „kontrollierte individuelle Heilversuch“ als neues Instrument bei der klinischen Erstanwendung risikoreicher Therapieformen – Ethische Analyse einer somatischen Gentherapie für das Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrom.Thomas Heinemann, Bert Heinrichs, Christoph Klein, Michael Fuchs & Dietmar Hübner - 2006 - Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft Und Ethik 11 (1):153-199.
    Das Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrom (WAS), ein genetisch bedingter Immundefekt mit klinischer Manifestation im Kleinkindalter, wird voraussichtlich in näherer Zukunft erstmals versuchsweise durch eine somatische Gentherapie behandelt werden. Im vor- liegenden Beitrag werden die wichtigsten medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakten dieses Krankheitsbildes sowie die bisherigen Erfahrungen mit somatischen Gentherapien bei anderen Immunmangelsyndromen ausführlich dargestellt. Sodann erfolgt eine ethische Analyse eines möglichen gentherapeutischen Eingriffs bei WAS-Patienten, bei der die spezifischen Aspekte des Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndroms – insbesondere die fast ausschließliche Betroffenheit von Kindern sowie die unterschiedlich aussichtsreiche Alter- nativoption einer (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. added 2018-03-15
    Germline Edits: Trust Ethics Review Process.Julian Savulescu, Chris Gyngell & Thomas Douglas - 2015 - Nature 520.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. added 2018-01-12
    Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement.Walter Veit - 2018 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (1):75-92.
    Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful albeit unrealistic. However, recent scienti c breakthroughs in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally. In 2001, when preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), enabled parents to select between multiple embryos, Julian Savulescu introduced the principle of procreative bene cence (PPB), stating that parents have the obligations to choose (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11. added 2017-08-02
    Bioconservatism, Partiality, and the Human-Nature Objection to Enhancement.Pugh Jonathan, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu - 2016 - The Monist 99 (4):406-422.
    “Bioconservatives” in the human enhancement debate endorse the conservative claim that we should reject the use of biotechnologies that enhance natural human capacities. However, they often ground their objections to enhancement with contestable claims about human nature that are also in tension with other common tenets of conservatism. We argue that bioconservatives could raise a more plausible objection to enhancement by invoking a strain of conservative thought developed by G.A. Cohen. Although Cohen’s conservatism is not sufficient to fully revive the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12. added 2017-08-02
    Autonomy, Natality and Freedom: A Liberal Re-Examination of Habermas in the Enhancement Debate.Jonathan Pugh - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (3):142-152.
    Jurgen Habermas has argued that carrying out pre-natal germline enhancements would be inimical to the future child's autonomy. In this article, I suggest that many of the objections that have been made against Habermas' arguments by liberals in the enhancement debate misconstrue his claims. To explain why, I begin by explaining how Habermas' view of personal autonomy confers particular importance to the agent's embodiment and social environment. In view of this, I explain that it is possible to draw two arguments (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13. added 2017-07-08
    Designing Babies: Morally Permissible Ways to Modify the Human Genome1.Nicholas Agar - 1995 - Bioethics 9 (1):1-15.
    My focus in this paper is the question of the moral acceptability of attempts to modify the human genome. Much of the debate in this area has revolved around the distinction between supposedly therapeutic modification on the one hand, and eugenic modification on the other. In the first part of the paper I reject some recent arguments against genetic engineering. In the second part I seek to distinguish between permissible and impermissible forms of intervention in such a way that does (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14. added 2017-02-15
    Three Harms of 'Conversion' Therapy.Candice Delmas - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 5 (1):22-23.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15. added 2017-02-09
    Good Parents Would Not Fulfil Their Obligation to Genetically Enhance Their Unborn Children.R. Tonkens - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (10):606-610.
    The purpose of this paper is to unveil the incompleteness of John Harris' view that parents have a moral obligation to genetically enhance their unborn children. Specifically, here two main conclusions are proposed: (1) at present there exist insufficient empirical data for determining whether prenatal genetic enhancement (PGE) is a moral obligation on prospective parents. Although the purpose of PGE research would be to determine the extent to which PGE is safe and effective, the task of determining the veracity of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16. added 2017-01-28
    Enhancement and Equality.Greg Bognar - 2012 - Ethical Perspectives 19 (1):11-32.
    Opponents of genetic enhancement technologies often argue that the pursuit of these technologies will lead to self-defeating collective outcomes, massive social inequalities, or other forms of collective harm. They assume that these harms will outweigh individual benefits. Defenders of genetic enhancement technologies counter that individual benefits will outweigh collective harms and there will be no conflict between individual and collective interests. The present contribution tries to advance the debate by providing a more detailed discussion of the conditions under which individual (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. added 2017-01-27
    Stocking the Genetic Supermarket: Reproductive Genetic Technologies and Collective Action Problems.Chris Gyngell & Thomas Douglas - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (4):241-250.
    Reproductive genetic technologies allow parents to decide whether their future children will have or lack certain genetic predispositions. A popular model that has been proposed for regulating access to RGTs is the ‘genetic supermarket’. In the genetic supermarket, parents are free to make decisions about which genes to select for their children with little state interference. One possible consequence of the genetic supermarket is that collective action problems will arise: if rational individuals use the genetic supermarket in isolation from one (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  18. added 2016-12-11
    CRISPR as a Driving Force: The Model T of Biotechnology.Carlos Mariscal & Angel Petropanagos - 2016 - Monash Bioethics Review 34 (2):1-16.
    The CRISPR system for gene editing can break, repair, and replace targeted sections of DNA. Although CRISPR gene editing has important therapeutic potential, it raises several ethical concerns. Some bioethicists worry CRISPR is a prelude to a dystopian future, while others maintain it should not be feared because it is analogous to past biotechnologies. In the scientific literature, CRISPR is often discussed as a revolutionary technology. In this paper we unpack the framing of CRISPR as a revolutionary technology and contrast (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. added 2016-12-02
    Science and Values.Matthew J. Barker - 2015 - Eugenics Archive.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. added 2016-09-11
    Why is an Egg Donor a Genetic Parent, but Not a Mitochondrial Donor?Monika Piotrowska - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (3):488-498.
    What’s the basis for considering an egg donor a genetic parent but not a mitochondrial donor? I will argue that a closer look at the biological facts will not give us an answer to this question because the process by which one becomes a genetic parent, i.e., the process of reproduction, is not a concept that can be settled by looking. It is, rather, a concept in need of philosophical attention. The details of my argument will rest on recent developments (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21. added 2016-08-20
    Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection.Jonny Anomaly - 2018 - Monash Bioethics Review 35:24-35.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22. added 2016-07-04
    The Ecological Imperative and its Application to Ethical Issues in Human Genetic Technology.W. Malcolm Byrnes - 2003 - Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2003:63-65.
    As a species, we are on the cusp of being able to alter that which makes us uniquely human, our genome. Two new genetic technologies, embryo selection and germline engineering, are either in use today or may be developed in the future. Embryo selection acts to alter the human gene pool, reducing genetic diversity, while germline engineering will have the ability to alter directly the genomes of engineered individuals. Our genome has come to be what it is through an evolutionary (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. added 2016-01-01
    Nineteen Eighty-Four or Brave New World?Ruel F. Pepa - manuscript
    In both paradigm-shaping novels, the central issue is the human person: Is s/he an autonomous being, that is a “being-for-itself” (with apologies to Jean-Paul Sartre) endowed with free-will and the inherent power to organize and hence determine her/his future? Or, is s/he solely a physico-mechanical “object” whose ideas, thoughts, feelings and decisions are just by-products of her/his physico-chemical constitution, genetic configuration and environmental conditioning? From where does s/he draw the meaningfulness of her/his life? Or perhaps the more fundamental question is: (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. added 2015-08-31
    Embracing Change with All Four Arms: Post-Humanist Defense of Genetic Engineering.J. Hughes - 1996 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6 (4):94-101.
    This paper sets out to defend human genetic engineering with a new bioethical approach, post-humanism, combined with a radical democratic political framework. Arguments for the restriction of human genetic engineering, and specifically germ-line enhancement, are reviewed. Arguments are divided into those which are fundamental matters of faith, or "bio-Luddite" arguments, and those which can be addressed through public policy, or "gene-angst" arguments.The four bio-Luddite concerns addressed are: Medicine Makes People Sick; There are Sacred Limits of the Natural Order; Technologies Always (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25. added 2015-03-23
    Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans.J. Robert Loftis - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):57-76.
    : The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  26. added 2014-12-20
    Nowa liberalna eugenika: krytyczny przegląd argumentów przeciwko biomedycznemu poprawianiu ludzkiej kondycji fizycznej lub umysłowej.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2014 - Diametros 42:204-226.
    Celem artykułu jest krytyka kilku popularnych argumentów przeciwko wykorzystywaniu współczesnych osiągnięć biomedycznych do poprawiania ludzkiej kondycji fizycznej lub umysłowej. Na przykładzie prac Habermasa, Sandela, Fukuyamy omówię trzy argumenty tego typu odwołujące się do: 1) autonomii; 2) życia jako daru; 3) naturalnej równowagi. Na koniec pokażę, że sprzeciw względem niektórych propozycji biomedycznego polepszenia kondycji ludzkiej może być wynikiem swoistego błędu poznawczego, który psychologowie określają jako efekt status quo.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27. added 2014-03-25
    Genetic Modifications for Personal Enhancement: A Defense.Timothy F. Murphy - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics (4):2012-101026.
    Bioconservative commentators argue that parents should not take steps to modify the genetics of their children even in the name of enhancement because of the damage they predict for values, identities and relationships. Some commentators have even said that adults should not modify themselves through genetic interventions. One commentator worries that genetic modifications chosen by adults for themselves will undermine moral agency, lead to less valuable experiences and fracture people's sense of self. These worries are not justified, however, since the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. added 2014-01-21
    Getting a Rise Out of Genetic Engineering.Massimo Pigliucci - 2013 - In John Huss (ed.), Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike. Open Court.
    What makes humans different from other animals, what humans are entitled to do to other species, whether time travel is possible, what limits should be placed on science and technology, the morality and practicality of genetic engineering—these are just some of the philosophical problems raised by Planet of the Apes. Planet of the Apes and Philosophy looks at all the deeper issues involved in the Planet of the Apes stories. It covers the entire franchise, from Pierre Boulle’s 1963 novel Monkey (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. added 2013-10-06
    Human Enhancement: A New Issue in Philosophical Agenda.Azevedo Marco Antonio - 2013 - Princípios 20 (33):265-304.
    Since before we can remember, humanity aims to overcome its biological limitations; such a goal has certainly played a key role in the advent of technique. However, despite the benefits that technique may bring, the people who make use of it will inevitably be under risk of harm. Even though human technical wisdom consists in attaining the best result without compromising anybody’s safety, misuses are always a possibility in the horizon. Nowadays, technology can be used for more than just improving (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. added 2013-08-17
    Human Enhancement: A New Issue in Philosophical Agenda.Marco Azevedo - 2013 - Princípios. Revista de Filosofía 20 (33):265-303.
    Since before we can remember, humanity aims to overcome its biological limitations; such a goal has certainly played a key role in the advent of technique. However, despite the benefits that technique may bring, the people who make use of it will inevitably be under risk of harm. Even though human technical wisdom consists in attaining the best result without compromising anybody’s safety, misuses are always a possibility in the horizon. Nowadays, technology can be used for more than just improving (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. added 2013-06-01
    Genetic Engineering and The Non-Identity Problem.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2008 - Diametros 16:63-79.
    In my essay I consider the imaginary case of a future mother who refuses to undergo genetic alteration on her germline although she knows that her, as yet unconceived, child will have a serious genetic disorder. I analyze the good and bad points of two branches of arguments directed against her decision, consequentialist and rights-based. Then I discuss whether accepting one line of these arguments or the other makes a difference in moral assessment. I conclude that, although from the preanalytical (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32. added 2011-05-31
    Genetic Modification and Future Generations.David Sackris - 2006 - Macalester Journal of Philosophy 15 (1).
    One of the most difficult issues to sort out morally is our obligation to future generations. Most individuals feel that they do indeed have some kind of obligation, but face difficulty in explaining the exact nature of the obligation. For one, it seems impossible to know the wants and desires of future generations, and furthermore the existence of the persons we are obligated to is entirely dependent upon the choices that we in fact make. In essence, we could shape future (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. added 2009-10-22
    Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics.Robert Sparrow - 2007 - Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
    The argument of Julian Savulescu’s 2001 paper, “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children” is flawed in a number of respects. Savulescu confuses reasons with obligations and equivocates between the claim that parents have some reason to want the best for their children and the more radical claim that they are morally obligated to attempt to produce the best child possible. Savulescu offers a prima facie implausible account of parental obligation, as even the best parents typically fail to (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations