An ethical pathway for gene editing

Gene-environment interaction: why genetic enhancement might never be distributed fairly

Ethical debates around genetic enhancement tend to include an argument that the technology will eventually be fairly accessible once available. That we can fairly distribute genetic enhancement has become a moral defence of genetic enhancement. Two distribution solutions are argued for, the first being equal distribution. Equality of access is generally believed to be the fairest and most just method of distribution. Second, equitable distribution: providing genetic enhancements to reduce social inequalities. In this paper, I make two claims. I first argue that the very assumption that genetic enhancements can be distributed fairly is problematic when considering our understanding of gene-environment interactions, for example, epigenetics. I then argue that arguments that genetic enhancements are permissible because the intended benefits can be distributed fairly as intended are misinformed. My first claim rests on the assertion that genetic enhancements do not enhance traits in a vacuum; genes are dependent on conducive environments for expression. If society cannot guarantee fair environments, then any benefit conferred from being genetically enhanced will be undermined. Thus, any argument that the distribution of genetic enhancements will be fair and that the technology is therefore morally permissible, is mistaken.

Precision Genome Editing Techniques in Gene Therapy: Current State and Future Prospects

Precision genome editing is a rapidly evolving field in gene therapy, allowing for the precise modification of genetic material. The CRISPR and Cas systems, particularly the CRISPRCas9 system, have revolutionized genetic research and therapeutic development by enabling precise changes like single-nucleotide substitutions, insertions, and deletions. This technology has the potential to correct disease-causing mutations at their source, allowing for the treatment of various genetic diseases. Programmable nucleases like CRISPR-Cas9, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) can be used to restore normal gene function, paving the way for novel therapeutic interventions. However, challenges, such as off-target effects, unintended modifications, and ethical concerns surrounding germline editing, require careful consideration and mitigation strategies. Researchers are exploring innovative solutions, such as enhanced nucleases, refined delivery methods, and improved bioinformatics tools for predicting and minimizing off-target effects. The prospects of precision genome editing in gene therapy are promising, with continued research and innovation expected to refine existing techniques and uncover new therapeutic applications.

¿Es el transhumanismo un fin de la medicina?

Actualmente los avances biotecnológicos han superado los fines clásicos de la medicina. Se han producido cambios conceptuales importantes que han impactado en el constructo médico de la relación médico/paciente, como son: a) La diversidad del concepto de naturaleza humana; b) El concepto de corporeidad humana; c) El concepto subjetivo de autonomía; y, d) El valor de la calidad de vida. El análisis bioético de estos conceptos lleva a la comprensión de porqué la medicina actual podría encaminarse hacia una ‘medicina del perfeccionamiento’ o ‘transhumanista’. La conclusión muestra que la medicina acepta la aplicación de los avances en la biotecnología bajo los postulados clásicos enfocados al campo de la salud y que es preciso emprender una profunda reflexión sobre la aplicación de los mismos, con la finalidad de aportar mejoras o nuevas funciones a sujetos sanos.

Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic

Following the Second Summit on Human Gene Editing in Hong Kong in 2018, where the birth of two girls with germline genome editing was revealed, the need for a responsible pathway to the clinical application of human germline genome editing has been repeatedly emphasised. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on research ethics issues in germline genome editing by exploring key issues related to the initial applications of CRISPR in reproductive medicine. Following an overview of the current discussion on bringing germline genome editing into clinical practice, we outline the specific challenges associated with such interventions and the features that distinguish them from conventional clinical testing of new medical treatments. We then review proposed ethical requirements for initial heritable genome editing, such as the absence of reasonable alternatives, the existence of sufficient and reliable preclinical data, appropriate informed consent, requirements related to safety, and long-term follow-up.

Gene Editing, Identity and Benefit

Some suggest that gene editing human embryos to prevent genetic disorders will be in one respect morally preferable to using genetic selection for the same purpose: gene editing will benefit particular future persons, while genetic selection would merely replace them. We first construct the most plausible defence of this suggestion-the benefit argument-and defend it against a possible objection. We then advance another objection: the benefit argument succeeds only when restricted to cases in which the gene-edited child would have been brought into existence even if gene editing had not been employed. Our argument relies on a standard account of comparative benefit which has recently been criticised on the grounds that it succumbs to the so-called 'pre-emption problem'. We end by considering how our argument would be affected were the standard account revised in an attempt to evade this problem. We consider three revised accounts and argue that, on all three, our critique of the benefit argument stands.

Heritable human genome editing: Research progress, ethical considerations, and hurdles to clinical practice

Our genome at conception determines much of our health as an adult. Most human diseases have a heritable component and thus may be preventable through heritable genome editing. Preventing disease from the beginning of life before irreversible damage has occurred is an admirable goal, but the path to fruition remains unclear. Here, we review the significant scientific contributions to the field of human heritable genome editing, the unique ethical challenges that cannot be overlooked, and the hurdles that must be overcome prior to translating these technologies into clinical practice.

Why human germline genome editing is incompatible with equality in an inclusive society

Human germline genome editing is increasingly being seen as acceptable provided certain conditions are satisfied. Accordingly, genetic modifications would take place on eggs or sperm (or their precursor cells) as well as very early embryos for the purpose of bringing children into existence with or without particular genetic traits. In this context, a number of already discussed and separate arguments, such as the (1) synecdoche, (2) non-identity (3) inherent equality and (4) expressivist arguments, can be brought together in the new context of examining, from an ethical perspective, some of the possible consequences of such germline genome editing. In so doing, it becomes clear that these novel procedures are incompatible with the concept of equality in value and in worth of all human beings in a genuinely inclusive society. Such equality is expressed in Article 1 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: 'All human beings are born … equal in dignity and rights.'

Ethics and Global Governance of Human Germline Genome Editing: The Problem of Techno-Scientific Colonialist Paternalism

I want to enrich the debate about the ethics and governance of human germline editing (HGE) by emphasizing an underappreciated, yet important, set of concerns regarding exclusionary practices, norms, and efforts that impede a broader discussion about the subject. The possibility for establishing a binding, global, regulatory framework is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors as well as historical processes and sociopolitical problems, such as anti-scientific social movements and the politicization of science. Likewise, it is influenced by different understanding, epistemic resources, and goals between the CRISPR/genome editing community and the rest of society. In this Perspective, I explain the concept of "techno-scientific colonialist paternalism" and why it negatively affects our discussion around HGE. I also discuss the pitfalls of scientific self-regulation, and finally, I advocate that the implementation of HGE should cease to allow time and care for a thoughtful global discussion to emerge.

Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman

Is the germline gene editing (GEE) of embryos with disabling conditions a moral obligation? According to a recent editorial by F. Broadmann, there are strong reasons to hold the opposite, since "such a focus on the benefit to individual embryos is to overlook the broader societal changes that genome editing will signal, as well as the potential negative impacts on existing persons with genetic conditions". This paper is aimed at rebuking these arguments by invoking the human dignity principle.

Is Human Enhancement in Space a Moral Duty? Missions to Mars, Advanced AI and Genome Editing in Space

Any space program involving long-term human missions will have to cope with serious risks to human health and life. Because currently available countermeasures are insufficient in the long term, there is a need for new, more radical solutions. One possibility is a program of human enhancement for future deep space mission astronauts. This paper discusses the challenges for long-term human missions of a space environment, opening the possibility of serious consideration of human enhancement and a fully automated space exploration, based on highly advanced AI. The author argues that for such projects, there are strong reasons to consider human enhancement, including gene editing of germ line and somatic cells, as a moral duty.

Why Human Enhancement is Necessary for Successful Human Deep-space Missions

While humans have made enormous progress in the exploration and exploitation of Earth, exploration of outer space remains beyond current human capabilities. The principal challenges lie in current space technology and engineering which includes the protection of astronauts from the hazards of working and living in the space environment. These challenges may lead to a paradoxical situation where progress in space technology and the ability to ensure acceptable risk/benefit for human space exploration becomes dissociated and the rate of scientific discovery declines. In this paper, we discuss the predominant challenges of the space environment for human health and argue that development and deployment of a human enhancement policy, initially confined to astronauts - for the purpose of future human space programmes is a rational solution to these challenges.

Benefit by design: Determining the 'value' of donor human milk and medical products derived from human milk in NICU

The use of donor human milk to provide therapeutic benefit to infants should only proceed where there is positive 'value'. This can be determined through an assessment of the benefit and the known risks. The emergence of new products derived from human milk requires new value assessments. The known hazards in human milk are modified by differences in the donor selection, processing methods and intended use and result in a unique risk assessment where any of these factors vary. The human source of the raw product requires high ethical standards in the design of these services with care taken to protect donors and recipients from harm. Any supplement to maternal milk should be provided cautiously to avoid displacement of maternal lactation.