Sperm, eggs and embryos are made up of more than genes, and there are indications that changes to non‐genetic structures in these elements of the germline can also be inherited. It is, therefore, a mistake to treat phrases like ‘germline inheritance’ and ‘genetic inheritance’ as simple synonyms, and bioethical discussion should expand its focus beyond alterations to the genome when considering the ethics of germline modification. Moreover, additional research on non‐genetic inheritance draws attention to a variety of means whereby differences (...) can be inherited in offspring generations that do not rely on differences in germline structures. Research on these diverse forms of inheritance challenges the notion that there is some special form of ethical concern that falls on germline interventions in general, and on interventions to the nuclear genome within the germline in particular. (shrink)

The precautionary principle aims to influence decision‐making in contexts where some activity poses uncertain but potentially grave threats. This perfectly describes the controversy surrounding germline gene editing. This article considers whether the precautionary principle should influence how we weigh the risks and benefits of human germline interventions, focusing especially on the possible threats to the health of future generations. We distinguish between several existing forms of the precautionary principle, assess their plausibility and consider their implications for the ethics of germline (...) modification. We also offer a novel form of the precautionary principle: the sufficientarian precautionary principle. Some plausible versions of the precautionary principle recommend placing somewhat greater weight on avoiding threats to future generations than on achieving short‐term benefits. However, no plausible versions of the precautionary principle entail that we should outright reject the use germline gene editing in human reproduction and some, such as the sufficientarian version, might endorse its use. (shrink)

The ability to make direct genetic changes to the DNA of future children poses profound challenges for governance: should it be done? For what purposes and subject to what limitations? And, no less importantly, who should decide? As a resolution pending in the US Senate rightly states, the prospect of editing the germline "touches on all of humanity". Given this, how should we as a human community guide and govern this emerging technology?The question of how human genome editing should be (...) governed—and by whom—has been at the heart of the debates that have unfolded over the course of the last five years.... (shrink)

This article traces the rapid progression of policy pertaining to human genome germline modifications using genome editing. It provides an overview of how one fertility physician implemented and advertised experimental techniques as part of his fertility clinic services, examines US law and policy, and assesses the impact of rhetoric influencing global policy and interpretation of the law. This article provides an in-depth examination of the medical rationale driving the acceptance of genome editing human embryos in two contexts: to cure disease (...) and treat infertility. It describes complexities in genomics and outlines risks currently associated with genome editing, asserting the available evidence fails to demonstrate genome editing constitutes a curative therapy. (shrink)

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics released the report Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues, concluding that human germline modification of human embryos for implantation is not ‘morally unacceptable in itself’ and could be ethically permissible in certain circumstances once the risks of adverse outcomes have been assessed and the procedure appears ‘reasonably safe’. The Nuffield Council set forth two main principles governing anticipated uses and envisions applications that may include health enhancements as a public (...) health measure. This essay provides a critique of three aspects in the Nuffield Council’s Report: its presumption of therapeutic efficacy, its inflation of parental rights to create a certain type of child, and its reliance on a specially commissioned report that appears to distort key definitions in international law. (shrink)

:Since the advent of recombinant DNA technology, expectations about the potential for altering genes and controlling our biology at the fundamental level have been sky high. These expectations have gone largely unfulfilled. But though the dream of being able to control our biology is still far off, gene editing research has made enormous strides toward potential clinical use. This paper argues that when it comes to determining permissible uses of gene editing in one important medical context—germline intervention in reproductive medicine—issues (...) about enhancement and eugenics are, for the foreseeable future, a red herring. Current translational goals for gene editing research involve a different kind of editing than would be required to achieve manipulation of complex traits such as intelligence, and there are more pressing questions that need attention if clinical use of gene editing in reproductive medicine ever becomes a possibility. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that there is no compelling therapeutic ‘need’ for human nuclear genome transfer to prevent mitochondrial diseases caused by mtDNA mutations. At most there is a strong interest in this technology on the part of some women and couples at risk of having children with mitochondrial disease, and perhaps also a ‘want’ on the part of some researchers who see the technology as a useful precedent – one that provides them with ‘a quiet way station’ in (...) which to refine the micromanipulations techniques essential for other human germline interventions and human cloning. In advance of this argument, I review basic information about mitochondrial disease and novel genetic strategies to prevent the transmission of mutated mitochondria. Next, I address common features of contemporary debates and discussions about so-called mitochondrial replacement. First, I contest the cliché that science-and-technology is fast outpacing ethics. Second, I dispute the accuracy of the term ‘mitochondrial replacement’. Third, I provide a sustained critique of the purported ‘need’ for genetically-related children. In closing, I call into question the mainly liberal defense of human nuclear genome transfer. I suggest an alternative frame of reference that pays particular attention to issues of social justice. I conclude that our limited resources should be carefully expended in pursuit of the common good, which does not include pandering to acquired desires. (shrink)