In Genes We Trust: Germline Engineering, Eugenics, and the Future of the Human Genome

Adapting Ourselves, Instead of the Environment: An Inquiry into Human Enhancement for Function and Beyond

Technology enables humans not only to adapt their environment to their needs but also to modify themselves. Means of Human Enhancement - embodied technologies to improve the human body's capabilities or to create a new one - are the designated means of adapting ourselves instead of the environment. The debate about these technologies is typically fought on ethical soil. However, alarmist, utopian, and science fiction scenarios distract from the fact that Human Enhancement is a historical and pervasive phenomenon incorporated into many everyday practices. In the vein of disentangling conceptual difficulties, we claim that means of Human Enhancement are either physiologically or psychologically embodied, rendering the merging with the human user their most defining aspect. To fulfill its purpose, an enhancement must pass the test-in-the-world, i.e., assisting with effective engagement with a dynamic world. Even if failing in this regard: Human Enhancement is the fundamental and semi-targeted process of changing the users relationship with the world through the physical or psychological embodiment of a hitherto external object and/or change of one's body. This can potentially change the notion of being human. Drawing on a rich body of theoretical and empirical literature, we aim to provide a nuanced analysis of the transformative nature of this phenomenon in close proximity to human practice. Stakeholders are invited to apply the theory presented here to interrogate their perspective on technology in general and Human Enhancement in particular.

You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

"Be careful what you wish for": This adage guides both how this project came to life, and how the topic covered in this review continues to unfold. What began as talks between two friends on shared interests in military history led to a 4-year discussion about how our science curriculum does little to introduce our students to societal and ethical impacts of the science they are taught. What emerged was a curricular idea centered on how "good intentions" of some were developed and twisted by others to result in disastrous consequences of state-sanctioned eugenics. In this article, we take the reader (as we did our students) through the long and soiled history of eugenic thought, from its genesis to the present. Though our focus is on European and American eugenics, we will show how the interfaces and interactions between science and society have evolved over time but have remained ever constant. Four critical 'case studies' will also be employed here for deep, thoughtful exploration on a particular eugenic issue. The goal of the review, as it is with our course, is not to paint humanity with a single evil brush. Instead, our ambition is to introduce our students/readers to the potential for harm through the misapplication and misappropriation of science and scientific technology, and to provide them with the tools to ask the appropriate questions of their scientists, physicians, and politicians.

Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report

In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing (HGE). The Nuffield report was notable for finding that HGE could be morally permissible, even in cases of human enhancement. In this paper, we summarise the findings of the Nuffield Council report, critically examine the guiding principles they endorse and suggest ways in which the guiding principles could be strengthened. While we support the approach taken by the Nuffield Council, we argue that detailed consideration of the moral implications of genome editing yields much stronger conclusions than they draw. Rather than being merely 'morally permissible', many instances of genome editing will be moral imperatives.

The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons

STUDY QUESTION

What are the reasons for or against the future clinical application of germline genome modification (GGM)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A total of 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

GGM is still unsafe and insufficiently effective for clinical purposes. However, the progress made using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated system (Cas) has led scientists to expect to overcome the technical hurdles in the foreseeable future. This has invited a debate on the socio-ethical and legal implications and acceptability of clinical applications of GGM. However, an overview of the reasons presented in this debate is missing.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

MEDLINE was systematically searched for articles published between January 2011 and June 2016. Articles covering reasons for or against clinical application of intentional modification of the nuclear DNA of the germline were included.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Two researchers independently extracted the reported reasons from the articles and grouped them into categories through content analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The systematic search yielded 1179 articles and 180 articles were included. Most papers were written by professionals in ethics, (science) journalism and biomedical sciences. Overall, 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for, and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. None of the included articles mentioned more than 60/169 reasons. The reasons could be categorized into: (i) quality of life of affected individuals; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness; (iv) existence of a clinical need or alternative; (v) costs; (vi) homo sapiens as a species (i.e. relating to effects on our species); (vii) social justice; (viii) potential for misuse; (ix) special interests exercising influence; (x) parental rights and duties; (xi) comparability to acceptable processes; (xii) rights of the unborn child; and (xiii) human life and dignity. Considerations relating to the implementation processes and regulation were reported.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We cannot ensure completeness as reasons may have been omitted in the reviewed literature and our search was limited to MEDLINE and a 5-year time period.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Besides needing (pre)clinical studies on safety and effectiveness, authors call for a sound pre-implementation process. This overview of reasons may assist a thorough evaluation of the responsible introduction of GGM.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

University of Amsterdam, Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (I.D.), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (S.H.). There are no competing interests.

Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis

With the arrival of new methods of genome editing, especially CRISPR/Cas 9, new perspectives on germline interventions have arisen. Supporters of germ line genome editing (GGE) claim that the procedure could be used as a means of disease prevention. As a possible life-saving therapy, it provides benefits that outweigh its risks. Opponents of GGE claim that the medical and societal risks, especially the use of GGE for genetic enhancement, are too high. In our paper, we analyze the risks and benefits of GGE. We show that the medical risk on an individual level might be reduced by further research in the near future so that they may be outweighed by the benefits. We also show that the societal risks of the procedure, i.e. genetic enhancement, are manageable by establishing a regulative framework before the GGE is implemented. Since the effects of modifying genes for the genepool of a given population are extremely difficult to model, the medical risks on the population level might be too high.