Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas & Savulescu Julian - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):498-513.
    Germline Gene Editing has enormous potential both as a research tool and a therapeutic intervention. While other types of gene editing are relatively uncontroversial, GGE has been strongly resisted. In this article, we analyse the ethical arguments for and against pursuing GGE by allowing and funding its development. We argue there is a strong case for pursuing GGE for the prevention of disease. We then examine objections that have been raised against pursuing GGE and argue that these fail. We conclude (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach.Scott Y. H. Kim, David Wendler, Kevin P. Weinfurt, Robert Silbergleit, Rebecca D. Pentz, Franklin G. Miller, Bernard Lo, Steven Joffe, Christine Grady, Sara F. Goldkind, Nir Eyal & Neal W. Dickert - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (12):3-11.
    Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Future of Human Nature.Jürgen Habermas - 2003 - Cambridge, UK: Polity. Edited by Jürgen Habermas.
    Recent developments in biotechnology and genetic research are raising complex ethical questions concerning the legitimate scope and limits of genetic intervention. As we begin to contemplate the possibility of intervening in the human genome to prevent diseases, we cannot help but feel that the human species might soon be able to take its biological evolution in its own hands. 'Playing God' is the metaphor commonly used for this self-transformation of the species, which, it seems, might soon be within our grasp. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   185 citations  
  • Genetic Engineering and the Consent of Future Persons.Martin Gunderson - 2008 - Journal of Evolution and Technology 18 (1):86-93.
    The debate over whether germ-line genetic engineering is justified on the basis of the consent or presumed consent of future generations is mired in philosophical confusion. Because of this, the principle of informed consent fails to provide a reason to restrict germ-line genetic engineering. Most recent bioethicists ground the consent requirement on individual autonomy. While conceptually coherent, the notion of individual autonomy also fails to provide a reason for prohibiting germ-line genetic engineering. Moreover, it offers little in the way of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Future of Human Nature.Jurgen Habermas - 2004 - Philosophy 79 (309):483-486.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   302 citations  
  • Review of Ruth R. Faden and Tom L. Beauchamp: A History and Theory of Informed Consent[REVIEW]William G. Bartholome - 1988 - Ethics 98 (3):605-606.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   419 citations  
  • Human Germline CRISPR-Cas Modification: Toward a Regulatory Framework.Niklaus H. Evitt, Shamik Mascharak & Russ B. Altman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):25-29.
    CRISPR germline editing therapies hold unprecedented potential to eradicate hereditary disorders. However, the prospect of altering the human germline has sparked a debate over the safety, efficacy, and morality of CGETs, triggering a funding moratorium by the NIH. There is an urgent need for practical paths for the evaluation of these capabilities. We propose a model regulatory framework for CGET research, clinical development, and distribution. Our model takes advantage of existing legal and regulatory institutions but adds elevated scrutiny at each (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations