ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: CRISPR-Cas9, a technology enabling modification of the human genome, is developing rapidly. There have been calls for public debate to discuss its ethics, societal implications, and governance. So far, however, little is known about public attitudes on CRISPR-Cas9. This study contributes to a better understanding of public perspectives by exploring the various holistic perspectives Dutch citizens have on CRISPR-Cas9. METHODS: This study used Q methodology to identify different perspectives of Dutch citizens (N = 30) on the use of CRISPR-Cas9. The Q-sort method aims at segmenting audiences based on the structural characteristics of their perspectives. Participants individually ranked 32 statements about CRISPR-Cas9 and discussed their rankings in small groups. By-person factor analysis was performed using PQMethod. Participants' contributions to the discussions were used to further make sense of the audience segments identified. RESULTS: Five perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 were identified: (1) pragmatic optimism (2) concerned scepticism; (3) normative optimism; (4) enthusiastic support; and (5) benevolent generalism. Each perspective represents a unique position motivated by different ranking rationales. Sorting rationales included improving health, preventing negative impacts on society, and fear of a slippery slope. Overall, there is broad, but not universal support for medical uses of CRISPR-Cas9. CONCLUSIONS: Research on CRISPR-Cas9 should prioritise the broadly supported applications of the technology. Research and public debates on CRISPR-Cas9, its uses, its broader implications, and the governance of CRISPR-Cas9 are recommended. A discourse that includes all perspectives can contribute to the embedding of future uses of CRISPR-Cas9 in society. This study shows that Q methodology followed by group discussions enables citizens to contribute meaningfully to discourses about research.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , CRISPR-Cas Systems , Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/genetics , Gene Editing/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Public Opinion , Genome, Human , Humans , NetherlandsABSTRACT
The CRISPR editing method is revolutionary. This technique opens the possibility of countless operations in the genome of living beings. However, the risks are high and, in some cases, unpredictable. Therefore, based on an anthropology that recognizes the human person with an inherent dignity that includes the body, this article intends to propose bases for a regulation capable of facing the challenge of CRISPR, especially, given the possibility of confusing its therapeutic resource with the eugenics, also before the imminent risk of unleashing unforeseen consequences such as mutations, malformations and side effects that could be devastating for human life.
Subject(s)
CRISPR-Cas Systems , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Interdisciplinary Communication , Anthropology , Biotechnology/ethics , Biotechnology/legislation & jurisprudence , Biotechnology/methods , Congenital Abnormalities/genetics , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Eugenics/methods , Gene Editing , Genetic Enhancement/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Enhancement/methods , Genetic Therapy , Genome, Human , Human Characteristics , Human Rights , Humans , Internationality , Mutation , Philosophy , RespectABSTRACT
Transgenesis is a parcel of biotechnology that allows the introduction of genetic information not proper to the genome of living beings, apart from the mechanisms of natural genetic exchange. This made possible to address important applications in bacteria, animals and plants with significant benefits in health, food and environmental aspects. Since its origin, the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) caused some controversy due to the possible negative influence of these organisms or their derived products on health and the environment. Over time, genetic modification techniques have renewed, giving way to others of greater precision, simplicity and safety. Currently the CRISPR-Cas9 technique is widely used, which allows to edit, modify or eliminate specific DNA sequences, with multiple applications in the same fields of transgenesis, but adding greater simplicity, security and lower cost. This work presents the main techniques, applications and ethical implications of using these methods and their perspectives in an ever-evolving world. The bacteria for obtaining products of pharmacological interest, new varieties of cultivated plants of higher production, more resistance to growth limiting agents and better nutritional quality and domestic animals modified genetically, offer a set of advantages needed to address the global challenges that affect the lives of many people around the world.
Subject(s)
Gene Editing/ethics , Gene Transfer Techniques/ethics , Organisms, Genetically Modified , Agriculture/methods , Animal Husbandry/methods , Animals , Bacteriological Techniques , CRISPR-Cas Systems , Environment , Food Safety , Food Security , Gene Editing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Health , Humans , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
El método de edición CRISPR es revolucionario. Está técnica abre la posibilidad de infinidades de operaciones en el genoma de seres vivos. Sin embargo, los riesgos son altos y, en algunos casos, imprevisibles. Por ello, a partir de una antropología que reconoce a la persona humana con una dignidad inherente que incluye el cuerpo, este artículo pretende proponer bases para una regulación capaz de afrontar el desafío de las CRISPR, especialmente, ante la posibilidad de confundir su recurso terapéutico con el eugenésico, asimismo ante el inminente riesgo de desencadenar consecuencias imprevistas como mutaciones, malformaciones y efectos secundarios que podrían ser devastadoras para la vida humana
The CRISPR editing method is revolutionary. This technique opens the possibility of countless operations in the genome of living beings. However, the risks are high and, in some cases, unpredictable. There-fore, based on an anthropology that recognizes the human person with an inherent dignity that includes the body, this article intends to propose bases for a regulation capable of facing the challenge of CRISPR, especially, given the possibility of confusing its therapeutic resource with the eugenics, also before the imminent risk of unleashing unforeseen consequences such as mutations, malformations and side effects that could be devastating for human life
Subject(s)
Humans , Gene Editing/ethics , Gene Editing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/legislation & jurisprudence , Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/genetics , Philosophy , Personhood , Anthropology, MedicalABSTRACT
Las tentadoras promesas del transhumanismo parecen estar cada vez más cerca, pero cabe preguntarse si no resultarán contraproducentes en algún sentido. El profesor Sandel expone los problemas sociales que conllevaría el desarrollo de seres humanos mejorados en nuestra concepción del mérito, la libertad y responsabilidad, el aprecio de la vida como un don, la inclinación a compartir nuestro destino con el de los demás y la concepción de los derechos individuales
Las tentadoras promesas del transhumanismo parecen estar cada vez más cerca, pero cabe preguntarse si no resultarán contraproducentes en algún sentido. El profesor Sandel expone los problemas sociales que conllevaría el desarrollo de seres humanos mejorados en nuestra concepción del mérito, la libertad y responsabilidad, el aprecio de la vida como un don, la inclinación a compartir nuestro destino con el de los demás y la concepción de los derechos individuales
The tempting promises of transhumanism seem to be getting closer and closer, but in some way counterproductive in some way. Professor Sandel presents the social problems that the development of improved human beings would entail in our understanding of merit, freedom and responsibility, the appreciation of life as a gift, the inclination to share our destiny with others and the conception of individual rights
The tempting promises of transhumanism seem to be getting closer and closer, but in some way counterproductive in some way. Professor Sandel presents the social problems that the development of improved human beings would entail in our understanding of merit, freedom and responsibility, the appreciation of life as a gift, the inclination to share our destiny with others and the conception of individual rights
Subject(s)
Humans , Humans , Humanism , Principle-Based Ethics , Biomedical Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Humanism , Principle-Based Ethics , Biomedical Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Human Genetics/trends , Biotechnology/trends , Damage Liability , Selection, Genetic , Human Genetics/trends , Biotechnology/trends , Damage Liability , Selection, GeneticABSTRACT
In a first major study, the UK's Royal Society found that 76% of people in the UK are in favour of therapeutic germline genomic editing to correct genetic diseases in human embryos, but found there was little appetite for germline genomic editing for non-therapeutic purposes. Assuming the UK and other governments acted on these findings, can lawmakers and policymakers coherently regulate the use of biomedical innovations by permitting their use for therapeutic purposes but prohibiting their use for enhancement purposes? This paper examines the very common claim in the enhancement literature that the therapy v enhancement distinction does little meaningful work in helping us think through the ethical issues, a claim that has significant implications for these lawmakers and policymakers who may wish to regulate genomic editing techniques to reflect the findings of this important study. The focus of this paper is on germline genomic editing as one of the main themes in this special issue.
Subject(s)
Ethicists , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Therapy/ethics , Concept Formation/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Therapy/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Jurisprudence , Policy , Terminology as TopicABSTRACT
The recent development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has rekindled the ethical debate concerning human germline modification that has begun decades ago. This inexpensive technology shows tremendous promise in disease prevention strategies, while raising complex ethical concerns about safety and efficacy of the technology, human dignity, tampering with God's creation, and human genetic enhancement. Germline gene editing may result in heritable changes in the human genome, therefore the question of whether it should be allowed requires deep and careful discussion from various perspectives. This paper explores Islamic perspectives on the concerns raised and highlights the ethical principles in Islam that should be taken into consideration when assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/ Cas9-mediated human germline gene editing. As argued in this paper, human germline gene editing would be considered lawful for medical purpose under certain conditions. It should not be applied on humans until the safety and efficacy issues are resolved. Robust ethical guidelines and strict regulations are necessary to preserve human dignity and to prevent premature and misuse of the technology. Maqasid al-shariah's principles of preservation of human life, lineage, and dignity and 'preventing harm takes precedence over securing benefit' are among the guiding principles in assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated human germline editing from an Islamic perspective. Further discussions are important to address the controversies as well as to explore the related ethical principles.
Subject(s)
CRISPR-Cas Systems , Gene Editing/ethics , Islam , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Germ Cells , Humans , Moral Status , Religion and Science , Respect , Value of LifeABSTRACT
It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade-offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade-offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro-managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.
Subject(s)
Cognition , Decision Making/ethics , Gene Editing/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Parents/psychology , Personality/genetics , Government Regulation , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a 'last resort' option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases. MAIN TEXT: This paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards immoral usage of the technology, e.g. designing children for specific third party interests. Our analysis did not reveal any fundamental differences with regard to the four concerns. CONCLUSION: We argue that with regard to the four arguments analyzed in this paper germline gene editing should be considered morally (at least) as acceptable as the selection of genomes on the basis of PGD. However, we also argue that any application of GGE in reproductive medicine should be put on hold until thorough and comprehensive laws have been implemented to prevent the abuse of GGE for non-medical enhancement.
Subject(s)
Gene Editing/ethics , Germ Cells/cytology , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Reproductive Medicine/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Humans , Morals , Personal Autonomy , Personhood , Philosophy, Medical , PrejudiceABSTRACT
La mejora genética en la especie humana ha suscitado desde siempre un amplio debate por lo que respecta a los aspectos éticos asociados a ella. Dicho debate había quedado circunscrito al ámbito meramente especulativo hasta la aparición de una nueva tecnología de edición genómica (CRISPR/Cas9) la cual lo ha reabierto al vislumbrarse una aplicabilidad a medio plazo que nos obliga a retomarlo y a reflexionar sobre la conveniencia o no de iniciar un camino excepcional en la historia de la evolución humana. En este artículo se detallan algunos de los argumentos esgrimidos a favor y en contra referentes a esta tecnología
Human genetic enhancement has always risen a wide debate regarding the ethical aspects associated with it. This debate had remained into a merely speculative realm until the appearance of a new genome editing technology (CRISPR / Cas9) which has reopened it when a mid-term applicability can be envisaged. This new situation forces us to resume it and ponder the convenience or not of initiating an exceptional path in the history of human evolution. This article details some of the arguments put forward in favour and against this technology
La millora genètica en l'espècie humana ha suscitat des de sempre un ampli debat pel que respecta als aspectes ètics associats a ella. Aquest debat havia quedat circumscrit a l'àmbit merament especulatiu fins l'aparició d'una nova tecnologia d'edició genòmica (CRISPR/Cas9) la qual l'ha reobert en albirar-se una aplicabilitat a mitjà termini que ens obliga a reflexionar sobre la conveniència o no d'iniciar un camí excepcional en la història de l'evolució humana. En aquest article es detallen alguns dels arguments esgrimits a favor i en contra referents a aquesta tecnologia
Subject(s)
Humans , Human Genetics/ethics , CRISPR-Cas Systems , CRISPR-Associated Protein 9 , Gene Editing , Genetic Enhancement/ethicsABSTRACT
This paper tries to look forward to the incoming ethical challenges related with genetic editing. It begins with contextualizing genetic edition within the specific nature of modern technology. Afterwards it presents the contrast between natural beings and artifacts that sheds light for answering the question about the real possibility of replacing natural beings, as they are, with technologically projected living beings. In the third place, after acknowledging the scarce attention given by contemporary theology to technology, it shows the convergence of the Christian concept of creation with the respect for balance in nature, as most part of the contemporaty ecological sensibility upholds. Building on this common ground it shows that the Christian attitude towards technology is not technofobical but the integration of technology -a central element of contemporary culture- with nature, accepting the limitation of any natural being including mankind. In this way, vulnerability, as a visible consequence of this finitude, is the very attribute of human beings that makes ourselves equal and requieres recongnition of our common dignity, way over the idea of acquiring an ideal perfection through technology, even if it was accesible to all.
Subject(s)
Christianity , Gene Editing/ethics , Attitude , Bionics , Catholicism , Conservation of Natural Resources , Culture , Forecasting , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Human Characteristics , Humans , Inventions/ethics , Social ResponsibilitySubject(s)
CRISPR-Cas Systems , Deafness/genetics , Deafness/prevention & control , Gene Editing , Mutation , Ovum/metabolism , Connexin 26 , Connexins/genetics , Female , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Goals , Humans , Mosaicism , Patient Safety/legislation & jurisprudence , Receptors, CCR5/genetics , Russia , Twins/geneticsABSTRACT
Inactivation of the CCR5 gene by CRISPR editing in human embryos, as recently attempted in China, was touted as a positive change for the babies involved since it was expected to impart resistance to HIV infection. However, it turns out that the absence of CCR5 is not neutral but actually decreases fitness, as shown by survival analysis of population data in the UK biobank. This underlines the pitfalls of genetic enhancement, and emphasizes that any germline modification must be preceded by in-depth studies to exclude unforeseen negative effects. .
Subject(s)
Embryo Research/ethics , Gene Editing/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Longevity/genetics , Adult , Aged , CRISPR-Cas Systems , China , Gene Silencing/physiology , Genome-Wide Association Study , HIV Infections/genetics , HIV Infections/prevention & control , HIV-1 , Humans , Middle Aged , Receptors, CCR5/geneticsABSTRACT
In his book The future of human nature, Jürgen Habermas argues against a scenario of liberal eugenics, in which parents are free to prenatally manipulate their children's genetic constitution via germline interventions. In this paper, I draw attention to the fact that his species-ethical line of argument is pervaded by a substantial ambiguity between an argument from actual intervention (AAI) and an argument from mere controllability (AMC). Whereas the first argument focuses on threats for the autonomy and equality of prenatally modified persons, the second argument takes all human beings, whether they have been modified or not, into account. Hence, when invoking Habermas in these debates, bioethicists need to consider carefully which argument they are referring to.
Subject(s)
Eugenics , Genetic Engineering/ethics , Genetic Engineering/standards , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/standards , Dissent and Disputes , Humans , Personal AutonomySubject(s)
CRISPR-Cas Systems/genetics , Cloning, Organism , Embryo Research , Ethics, Research , Gene Editing , Genetic Enhancement , China , Cloning, Organism/ethics , Cloning, Organism/methods , Cloning, Organism/trends , Embryo Research/ethics , Female , Gene Editing/ethics , Gene Editing/methods , Gene Editing/trends , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/methods , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , HIV Infections/genetics , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Receptors, CCR5/genetics , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/ethics , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted/trendsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Gene Editing/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Child , Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats , HumansABSTRACT
The advantages and risks of a number of new genome modifying procedures seeking to create healthy or enhanced individuals, such as Maternal Spindle Transfer, Pronuclear Transfer, Cytoplasmic Transfer and Genome Editing, are currently being assessed from an ethical perspective, by national and international policy organizations. One important aspect being examined concerns the effects of these procedures on different kinds of identity. In other words, whether or not a procedure only modifies the qualities or properties of an existing human being, meaning that merely the qualitative identity of this single individual is affected, or whether a procedure results in the creation of a new individual, meaning that a numerically distinct human being would have come into existence. In this article, the different identity arguments proposed, so far, are presented with respect to these novel reproductive procedures. An alternative view is then developed using the Origin Essentialism argument to indicate that any change in the creative conditions of an individual such as in his or her biology but also the moment in time, and the three dimensions of space, will have a numerical identity effect and bring into existence a new individual who would not, otherwise, have existed. Because of this, it is concluded that a form of selection may have taken place in which a preference was expressed for one new possible individual instead of another, based on some frame of reference. This may then mean that a selection between persons has occured contravening the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights which was ratified in 2000.