Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene editing.Bryan Cwik - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (3):183-187.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?Eric T. Juengst - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23.
    In 2015, a flourish of “alarums and excursions” by the scientific community propelled CRISPR/Cas9 and other new gene-editing techniques into public attention. At issue were two kinds of potential gene-editing experiments in humans: those making inheritable germ-line modifications and those designed to enhance human traits beyond what is necessary for health and healing. The scientific consensus seemed to be that while research to develop safe and effective human gene editing should continue, society's moral uncertainties about these two kinds of experiments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Modular Ontologies for Genetically Modified People and their Bioethical Implications.Derek So, Robert Sladek & Yann Joly - 2024 - NanoEthics 18 (2):1-35.
    Participants in the long-running bioethical debate over human germline genetic modification (HGGM) tend to imagine future people abstractly and on the basis of conventionalized characteristics familiar from science fiction, such as intelligence, disease resistance and height. In order to distinguish these from scientifically meaningful terms like “phenotype” and “trait,” this article proposes the term “persemes” to describe the units of difference for hypothetical people. In the HGGM debate, persemes are frequently conceptualized as similar, modular entities, like building blocks to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Human Subjects Protections in Biomedical Enhancement Research: Assessing Risk and Benefit and Obtaining Informed Consent.Maxwell J. Mehlman & Jessica W. Berg - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (3):546-559.
    There are two critical steps in determining whether a medical experiment involving human subjects can be conducted in an ethical manner: assessing risks and potential benefits and obtaining potential subjects’ informed consent. Although an extensive literature on both of these aspects exists, virtually nothing has been written about human experimentation for which the objective is not to prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease or condition, but to enhance human capabilities. One exception is a 2004 article by Rebecca Dresser on preimplantation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • We could be heroes: ethical issues with the pre-recruitment of research participants.David Hunter - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):557-558.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation