The distinction between germline and somatic gene editing is fundamental to the ethics of human gene editing. Multiple conferences of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers, and multiple professional bodies, have called for moratoria on germline gene editing, and editing of human germline cells is considered to be an ethical “red line” that either never should be crossed, or should only be crossed with great caution and care. However, as research on germline gene editing has progressed, it has become clear that not (...) all germline interventions are alike, and that these differences make a significant moral difference, when it comes to ethical questions about research, regulation, clinical application, and medical justification. In this paper, I argue that, rather than lumping all germline interventions together, we should distinguish between revising, correcting, and transferring genes, and I assess the consequences of this move for the ethics of gene editing. (shrink)

This paper gives an introduction to the interdisciplinary special section. Against the historical and ethical background of reproductive technologies, it explores future scenarios of human reproduction and analyzes ways of mutual engagement between fictional and academic endeavors. The underlying idea is that we can make use of human reproduction scenarios in at least two ways: we can use them to critique technologies by imagining terrible consequences for humanity but also to defend positions that favor scientific and technological development.

Until recently, scientific consensus held firm that genetically manipulated embryos created through methods including Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy or human germline genome editing should not be used to initiate a pregnancy. In countries that have relevant laws pertaining to heritable human germline modifications, the vast majority prohibit or restrict this practice. In the last several years, scholars have observed a transformation of scientific and policy restrictions with insistent calls for creating a regulatory pathway. Multiple stakeholders highlight the role of social consensus (...) and public engagement for governance of heritable human germline modifications. However, in the drive to gain public acceptance and lift restrictions, some proponents provide distorted or misleading narratives designed to influence public perception and incrementally shift the consensus. This article describes eight discrete strategies that proponents employ to influence framing, sway public opinion, and revise policymaking of human germline modifications in a manner that undermines honest engagement. (shrink)

Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 3, Page 37-48, May–June 2022.

In ‘Parental Genetic Shaping and Parental Environmental Shaping’, Anca Gheaus argues there is a normative difference between parents using genetic means to influence the development of their child, and parents using environmental means to achieve the same ends. Genetic shaping but not environmental shaping, it is claimed, introduces a negative asymmetry in the child–caregiver relationship. In this paper, we argue that Gheaus’ argument fails as a critique of genetic shaping, and does not establish a moral difference between genetic and environmental (...) shaping. Contrary to Gheaus’ arguments in both ‘Parental Genetic Shaping and Parental Environmental Shaping’ and ‘Parental Enhancement and Symmetry of Power in the Parent–Child Relationship’, we also argue that even if genetic or prebirth shaping introduces further inequality in the parent–child relationship, this is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is not clear how a parent refraining from taking up the availability of such technology leaves the child better off. (shrink)

Design of clinical trials for germline gene editing stretches current accepted standards for human subjects research. Among the challenges involved is a set of issues concerningintergenerational monitoring—long-term follow-up study of subjects and their descendants. Because changes made at the germline would be heritable, germline gene editing could have adverse effects on individuals’ health that can be passed on to future generations. Determining whether germline gene editing is safe and effective for clinical use thus may require intergenerational monitoring. The aim of (...) this paper is to identify and argue for the significance of a set of ethical issues raised by intergenerational monitoring in future clinical trials of germline gene editing. Though long-term, multigenerational follow-up study of this kind is not without precedent, intergenerational monitoring in this context raises unique ethical challenges, challenges that go beyond existing protocols and standards for human subjects research. These challenges will need to be addressed if clinical trials of germline gene editing are ever pursued. (shrink)