: Genetic interventions raise a host of moral issues and, of its various species, germ-line genetic enhancement is the most morally contentious. This paper surveys various arguments against germ-line enhancement and attempts to demonstrate their inadequacies. A positive argument is advanced in favor of certain forms of germ-line enhancements, which holds that they are morally permissible if and only if they augment Rawlsian primary goods, either directly or by facilitating their acquisition.

Current philosophical and legal bioethical reflection on reprogenetics provides little more than a rationalization of the interests of science. There are two reasons for this. First, bioethicists attempt to address ethical issues in a “language of precision” that characterizes science, and this works against analogical and narratological modes of discourse that have traditionally provided guidance for understanding human nature and purpose. Second, the current ethical and legal debate is framed by a public/private distinction that banishes robust norms to the private (...) realm, and leaves a minimalist public discourse of harm avoidance that is insufficient for regulating the science. In this essay, I argue that Mark Hanson's account of anxiety provides a valuable starting point for addressing deficiencies in the current philosophical and legal debate, and it highlights the need for a theological discourse on genetic enhancements. Through an assessment of Joel Shumann's criticism of the public/private distinction, I show how the needed theological discourse should be situated in the context of robust communities, and how such a communitarian inter-ethic is compatible with a variant of liberalism. Finally, I critically assess James Keenan's account of virtue and perfection, in order to outline what a sufficient discourse on reproductive and genetic enhancements requires. (shrink)

The case in favor of gene therapy is quite simple. Gene therapy is likely to improve the health and well-being of some people that are among the worst off in society, namely patients with painful and life-threatening diseases. However, two types of objection have been raised.

It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the categorical imperative. Kant’s moral philosophy does, however, provide (...) limits to justifiable genetic engineering. (shrink)

In 1982, the President's Commission produced its report on human gene therapy. One of that report's recommendations was to expand the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health to include a subcommittee on human gene therapy. In 1984, the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee was established, and in 1989 it produced a document—“Points to Consider for Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA into Human Subjects”—that stated the RAC's position on what sorts of protocols it would approve.In assessing (...) the impact of the President's Commission report, Alexander Capron wrote,[t]he line [the report] drew between somatic cell and germ-line therapies has shaped subsequent discussions and policy formulation. Its conclusion … that somatic cell therapy resembles medical treatment is the basic premise of the RAC subcommittee's “Points to Consider,” while the Commission's view that ethical as well as technical barriers preclude present attempts to alter germ cells continues to be generally accepted by scientists and nonscientists alike. (shrink)

Contributors to the debate surrounding the ethics of germ line gene manipulation have by and large concentrated their efforts on discussions of the potential risks that are associated with the use of this technology. Many international advisory committees have ruled out the acceptability of germ line gene manipulation at least for the time being. The purpose of this work is to generate much needed discussion on the many other ethical issues concerning the implementation of not only germ line gene manipulation (...) but also other related biotechnologies. In this paper I systematically investigate and analyse the most salient issues put forward by proponents and opponents alike. I argue that if germ line manipulation proves to be a safe and effective procedure, then the principle of beneficence imposes on the medical profession a moral duty to pursue the technology. (shrink)

In 2015 scientists called for a partial ban on genome editing in human germline cells. This call was a response to the rapid development of the CRISPR–Cas9 system, a molecular tool that allows researchers to modify genomic DNA in living organisms with high precision and ease of use. Importantly, the ban was meant to be a trust-building exercise that promises a ‘prudent’ way forward. The goal of this paper is to analyse whether the ban can deliver on this promise. To (...) do so the focus will be put on the precedent on which the current ban is modelled, namely the Asilomar ban on recombinant DNA technology. The analysis of this case will show (a) that the Asilomar ban was successful because of a specific two-step containment strategy it employed and (b) that this two-step approach is also key to making the current ban work. It will be argued, however, that the Asilomar strategy cannot be transferred to human genome editing and that the current ban therefore fails to deliver on its promise. The paper will close with a reflection on the reasons for this failure and on what can be learned from it about the regulation of novel molecular tools. (shrink)

Significant breakthroughs in genetic research promoted by the human genome project, advances in molecular biology and new reproductive technologies have improved the understanding and the possibility of genetic interventions as a potential medication for diseases caused by differentiated disorders, especially those that originated in irregularities in individual genes. The progress achieved in contemporary studies has created the likelihood that the man has the technical capacity to modify the genes that will be transmitted to the next generations as well. These are (...) the so-called hereditary genetic modifications, i.e. any biomedical interventions which could be expected to transform the genome which a person could transfer to their offspring. The author analyses in this paper why even the hints of transformations of genes that will be passed on to future generations cause deep bioethical, theological, legal and political debates and controversies. He also believes that in the era of rapid strengthening of the social and technical and technological effects of science, it is very important that scientists, in their perceptions and insights, which particularly in the field of humanities, do not have the character of value beliefs, do not go below the achieved civilization standards of ethical and moral culture and to reflect on different themes with due care and awareness of the dilemmas that they can encounter in their professional work. An adequate interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and pluriperspective approach, as well as the awareness of the essential compatibility of scientific freedom and responsibility, should ultimately result in a different and more sophisticated attitude of the scientists themselves to the possibilities of their own discipline and the significance of its effects. (shrink)

To discern the ethical issues involved incurrent gene therapy research, to explore theproblems inherent in possible future genetherapies, and to encourage debate within thescientific community about ethical questionsrelevant to both, we surveyed American Societyof Human Genetics scientists who engage inhuman genetics research. This study of theopinions of U.S. scientific experts about theethical issues discussed in the literature ongene therapy contributes systematic data on theattitudes of those working in the field as wellas elaborative comments. Our survey finds thatrespondents are highly supportive (...) of thepotential use of somatic cell gene therapy tocure serious diseases in adults and children aswell as prospective offspring. A clearmajority, however, believe that using suchgenetic techniques for enhancement purposes isunacceptable. Delineating the line betweendisease/disorder and improvement/enhancementposes a problem not easily resolved and oneconducive to the growth of slippery-slopeapprehensions. The majority of respondents alsoadvocate germ-line therapy, in theory at least,and under similar restrictions, but theyrecognize the roadblock that the existence ofunanticipated negative consequences currentlypresents. Another complex matter involvestrying to determine appropriate reasons forchoosing target diseases for research, forwhich the dichotomy between rare single-geneand common multifactorial diseases reveals anongoing dilemma. (shrink)

Reproductive medical technology has revolutionized the natural order of human procreation. Accordingly, some have celebrated its advent as a new and liberating determinant of kinship at the global level and advocate it as a right to reproductive health while others have frowned upon it as a vehicle for “guiltless exchange of sexual fluid” and commodification of human gametes. Religious voices from both Christianity and Islam range from unthinking adoption to restrictive use. While utilizing this technology to enable the married couple (...) to have children through the use of their own sexual material is welcome, the use of third party, surrogacy, and reproductive cloning are not in keeping with the sacrosanct principles of kinship, procreation through licit sexual intercourse, and social cohesiveness for building a cohesive family as uphold by both Christianity and Islam. To examine such larger issues emanating from these new ways of human procreation, beyond the question of legality, is a point which legal scholars in both Christianity and Islam, when issuing religious decrees, have not anticipated sufficiently. The article proposes to be an attempt to that end through a qualitative critical content analysis of selected literature written on the subject. (shrink)

In this article, I critically analyze the anthropological foundation of the bioethics of philosopher Jean-François Malherbe, particularly as presented in his book, Pour une Éthique de la Médecine. Malherbe argues that such practices as organ donation and transplants, assisted reproduction, resuscitation, and other uses of biotechnologies in contemporary medicine are unethical because they go against essential human nature. Furthermore, he uses this position as a basis to prescribe public policy and institutional practice. In contrast, I argue not only that ‘human (...) nature’ is much more malleable and adaptive to changes in technology and society than Malherbe allows, but also that his criticisms of medicine and technoscientific development overstep the bounds of the social function of philosophical ethics, which is to inform and clarify public debate. Public policy and institutional practice is thus best left to the democratic political process under the parameters of the just rule of law. (shrink)