Hastings Scholar: No Bright Lines in Telling Right From Wrong in Human Gene Editing
In today’s ethical debates over human gene editing, there are two lines in the sand. One is between treatment and enhancement: for many people, the prospect of using CRISPR or other gene editing technologies to prevent or treat a medical condition is acceptable, whereas using it to enhance human capabilities is ethically questionable. The other line is between making genetic changes that affect only one individual and making changes in embryos, eggs, and sperm, which can be passed down to future generations. But there are no bright lines that can tell right from wrong in the use of gene editing in humans, writes Josephine Johnston, director of research and a research scholar at The Hastings Center, in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. She gives several reasons, including that the distinctions are fuzzy. She cites enhancements “that most people agree should be available,” including vaccination and corrective surgeries for cleft lip. Despite the limitations, however, she says that the distinctions can be useful to policymakers and scientists: “they can still guide discussion and point to the particular ethics questions that ought to receive more or less attention in particular cases.” But lines in the sand “are no substitute for nuanced, context-specific analyses.” Read the article for free.
|
