Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Rereading Habermas in Times of CRISPR-cas: A Critique of and an Alternative to the Instrumentalist Interpretation of the Human Nature Argument.Annett Wienmeister - 2022 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 19 (4):545-556.
    Habermas’s argument from human nature, which speaks in favour of holding back the use of human germline editing for purposes of enhancement, has lately received criticism anew. Prominent are objections to its supposedly genetic essentialist and determinist framework, which underestimates social impacts on human development. I argue that this criticism originates from an instrumentalist reading of Habermas’s argument, which wrongly focuses on empirical conditions and means-ends-relations. Drawing on Habermas’s distinction of a threefold use of practical reason, I show how an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • ‘Beyond’ Human Enhancement — Taking the Developing Country’s Perspective Seriously.Vorathep Sachdev - 2021 - Asian Bioethics Review 14 (2):169-182.
    Bioethicists and philosophers dominate the on-going debate on human enhancement. They have debated the definition of human enhancement as well as the potential impacts of human enhancement technologies (such as pharmaceutical enhancements or pre-natal selection). These discussions have percolated, through bioethics bodies and bioethics recommendations, policy makers and have eventually been translated into policy. While some suggestions have been based largely in Western liberal democracies, others have deliberated the geopolitical consequences of human enhancement technologies. This paper argues that the present (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Genome Editing Dilemma: Navigating Dual-Use Potential and Charting the Path Forward.Ana Ruxandra Badea & Oliver Feeney - forthcoming - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry:1-10.
    Contemporary genome editing techniques have made genomic intervention—from microorganism to human—more accessible, easier to use, and more accurate than previous methods. We argue that, notwithstanding its merits in treating and preventing disease in humans, genome editing represents a potential threat for domestic and international security, requiring an integrated approach in regulating, detecting, preventing, and mitigating the risk of its use for malicious purposes. Despite the global regulatory ambitions of the 2021 WHO framework, we see insufficient attention given to the future (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark