An international summer course on health care ethics, Human Rights in Medicine, will be held from June 26-30 ….

An Advanced Europen Bioethics Course, Ethics and Genetics, will be held from 16-18 November 2000 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. ….

This paper (1) reviews and analyzes the positions on genetics taken in the official statements of Christian churches in the United States, together with church institutions of global status, and 2) offers suggestions about possible future responses of the churches to genetics and biotechnology.

The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep evoked widespread response from the Christian Churches. These responses are identified, organized thematically, and discussed critically. The churches have viewed reproductive human cloning either with unqualified opposition or with grave suspicion. Some statements have discussed animal cloning, generally granting limited approval, and nonreproductive human cloning, either in opposition or expressing an openness to entertain specific proposals as the technology develops.

In 1969, the field of human genetics was in its infancy. Amniocentesis was a new technique for prenatal diagnosis, and a newborn genetic screening program had been established in one state. There were also concerns about the potential hazards of genetic engineering. A research group at the Hastings Center and Paul Ramsey pioneered in the discussion of genetics and bioethics. Two principal techniques have emerged as being of enduring importance: human gene transfer research and genetic testing and screening. This essay (...) tracks the development and use of these techniques and considers the ethical issues that they raise. (shrink)

Despite the advent of CRISPR, safe and effective gene editing for human enhancement remains well beyond our current technological capabilities. For the discussion about enhancing human beings to be worth having, then, we must assume that gene-editing technology will improve rapidly. However, rapid progress in the development and application of any technology comes at a price: obsolescence. If the genetic enhancements we can provide children get better and better each year, then the enhancements granted to children born in any given (...) year will rapidly go out of date. Sooner or later, every modified child will find him- or herself to be “yesterday’s child.” The impacts of such obsolescence on our individual, social, and philosophical self-understanding constitute an underexplored set of considerations relevant to the ethics of genome editing. (shrink)

In this paper, there were presented ethical arguments concerning the application of modern techniques of genetic intervention in human procreation. In particular, the rationalistic arguments in favour of genetic interventions were critically presented, namely the argument on ethical neutrality of technology, liberal argument on procreative freedom and argument on genetic enhancement. There were also analysed the negative emotional reaction to genetic engineering. The main aim of the paper was to express the cognitive element from these emotions enabling a wider understanding (...) of human procreation and the values of parent-child relations. (shrink)

Manuscript based on address delivered February, 1998 at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics, Dallas, Texas.

This paper discusses the hazards of regulating controversial biomedical research in light of the emergence of powerful, multi-national biotechnology corporations. Prohibitions on the use of government funds can simply force controversial research into the private sphere, and unilateral or multilateral research bans can simply encourage multi-national companies to conduct research in countries that lack restrictive laws. Thus, a net effect of government regulation is that research migrates from the public to the private sphere. Because private research receives less oversight and (...) external scrutiny than public research, it can threaten the welfare and rights of human subjects, scientific progress and openness, and the quality of the approval process for new biomedical technologies. In order to avoid the harmful effects of government regulation of biotechnology, society should promote meaningful discussion and dialogue among scientists, industry leaders, and the public before resorting to regulatory solutions. Legislative or executive initiatives should be applied with great discretion and care, and should be crafted in such a way that they protect public health and safety, promote scientific progress, and avoid the hazards of privatized research and polarized debates. (shrink)

As we approach the 21st century, the threat of nuclear Armageddon has lessened somewhat, but a new threat has emerged: biological warfare. The splitting of the atom eventually led to the detonation of atomic bombs, and the discovery of DNA may soon lead to the use of genetic weapons. This article argues that the scientific community has a responsibility to help protect the world against the threat of biological weapons.

From carrots to frogs to sheep and finally to humans, the history of cloning is a fascinating study of the interplay between science and popular culture. Imagination and discovery provide mutual impetus in the evolving science and cultural phenomenon of cloning. Its history is a paradigm of science unfiction: What once belonged unequivocally on the pages of science fiction is now emerging in flesh and blood. Writers, movie producers, ethicists, and all manner of social commentators, no less than scientists, have (...) all participated in the creation of the human clone as an idea and as a biological entity. While the clone stands apart as having only one genetic parent, it truly is a brainchild of multifarious origins. (shrink)

Advocates of cognitive enhancement maintain that technological advances would augment autonomy indirectly by expanding the range of options available to individuals, while, in a recent article in this journal, Schaefer, Kahane, and Savulescu propose that cognitive enhancement would improve it more directly. Here, autonomy, construed in broad procedural terms, is at the fore. In contrast, when lauding the goodness of enhancement expressly, supporters’ line of argument is utilitarian, of an ideal variety. An inherent conflict results, for, within their utilitarian frame, (...) the content of rational, hence autonomous, choices is quite restricted. Further, advocates do not clearly indicate their relative emphasis between the often conflicting goals of maximizing benefit and avoiding harm. In practice, their construction of harms is highly expansive, for disabilities include any constraints that “rational” people would decline if it were technically possible to do so. For advocates, this means that where enhancement measures are available, those constraints become avoidable limitations, and not to remove them is to harm. The centrality of harm-avoidance and their ideal utilitarian frame entail sociopolitical requirements that enhancement defenders disallow when trumpeting autonomy in the vein of individual choice. Advocates have thus not done enough to support the claim that their views are wholly separate from earlier eugenics. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to stimulate academic discussion about the ethical justification of using human primordial stem cells for tissue transplantation, cell replacement, and gene therapy. There are intriguing alternatives to using embryos obtained from elective abortions and in vitro fertilisation to reconstitute damaged or dysfunctional human organs. These include the expansion and transplantation of latent adult progenitor cells.

In this paper I analyse who should be able to control the use of human embryonic stem cell lines. I distinguish between different kinds of control and analyse a set of arguments that purport to show that the donors of gametes and embryos should not be able to control the use of stem cell lines derived from their embryos. I show these arguments to be either deficient or of so general a scope that they apply not only to donors but (...) also to those who derived the stem cell lines. Since we normally think that stem cell derivers have the right to control the use of the cell lines they derived, we have no justification for denying donors similar rights of control. In the final section I briefly discuss why informed consent is not an appropriate vehicle for transferring or alienating control rights. (shrink)

Definition of the Problem: The ethical debate on the cloning of human beings is by no means new. Its history goes back to the middle of the 1960s. However, the theoretical level of the contents of this debate still doesn't seem to have got past its initial stages.Arguments and conclusion: First, a short overview will be given of these 30 years of history of ethical debate, and some central concepts will be explained. Subsequently a critical analysis will be made of (...) the arguments for and against the cloning of people which are used in this debate. The intention of this exposition is to stimulate further ethical discussion on the cloning of human beings. (shrink)

Professor Dunstan has selected certain aspects of the preceding papers on artificial insemination by donor and subjected these to the scrutiny of a moral theologian.

Étant donné la définition de l'eugénisme, il est très difficile d'établir une distinction claire entre la science (médecine, ingénierie génétique) et l'eugénisme en tant que domaine inclus. Et pour définir une ligne sur laquelle l'ingénierie génétique ne devrait pas aller plus loin, conformément aux normes morales, juridiques et religieuses. Si nous acceptons l'aide de la génétique pour trouver des moyens de lutter contre le cancer, le diabète ou le VIH, nous acceptons également l'eugénisme positif tel qu'il est défini à présent. (...) Et si nous acceptons le dépistage génétique et les interventions sur le fœtus, ou l’avortement, nous acceptons implicitement l’eugénisme négatif. En outre, au niveau gouvernemental, bien que l'eugénisme soit officiellement refusé, il a été légalisé dans de nombreux pays jusqu'à récemment et est toujours accepté et légalisé, même sous des formes subtiles, même de nos jours. -/- TABLE: -/- Abstract Introduction 1. Histoire de l'eugénisme - 1.1 Antiquité - 1.2 Le darwinisme social - 1.3 Francis Galton - 1.4 Charles Davenport - 1.5 L'eugenisme en tant que politique d'État - - 1.5.1 L'eugenisme en États-Unis - - 1.5.2 L'eugenisme en Allemagne - 1.6 La période d'après-guerre 2. L'eugénisme actuel - 2.1 L'eugénisme libéral - 2.2 L'eugénisme en tant que politique d'État 3. L'éthique de l'eugénisme 4. L'avenir de l'eugénisme Conclusions Bibliographie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12520.83203 . (shrink)

Argumentele referitoare la înțelepciunea continuării experimentării genetice și posibilele efecte eugenice ale ingineriei genetice se încadrează în general în trei domenii: etica biomedicală, moralitatea și religia și legea. Utilizarea potențială a ingineriei genetice a readus în discuții eugenia din trecut în disputele despre bioetică. Există opinii conform cărora și programele de eugenie fără caracter coercitiv ar fi în mod inerent lipsite de etică. Principiul moral central al eticii biomedicale implică o obligație de a conferi beneficii și de a elimina daunele. (...) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23816.16649. (shrink)

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 (...) Serve Ruling Interests; The Genome is Too Complicated to Engineer. I argue that these are matters of faith that one either accepts or rejects, and that I reject.The non-fundamentalist or pragmatic concerns I discuss are: Fascist Applications; The Value of Genetic Diversity; The Geneticization of Life; Genetic Discrimination and Confidentiality; Systematically Bad Decisions by Parents; Discrimination Against the Disabled; Unequal Access; The Decline of Social Solidarity. I conclude that all these concerns can be adequately addressed through a proactive regulative framework administered by a liberal democratic state. Therefore, even germ-line genetic enhancement should eventually made available since the potential benefits greatly outweigh the potential risks. (shrink)

Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Workshop in History and Philosophy of Biology, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, March 23-24 2001 Session 1: Eugenics Narrative and Reproductive Engineering.