In part II of my post on the Nuffield report on genome editing, I will discuss the criteria that Nuffield suggests characterise a legitimate germline modification - or when exactly they say the genetic modification of a human embryo is a moral thing to do.
The Nuffield Council on Genome Editing: Part I
Last week, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics released its long awaited report on genome editing. The upshot is that in particular circumstances, it would be moral to modify human embryos genetically. Leading newspapers have welcomed this statement, but it seems that it deserves more careful discussion - click here for a two-part blog post!.
What do people think about genome editing? Part II
If there were a technology that improved intelligence and cured arthritis, who would criticise it? However, that technology is not genome editing. A recent survey commissioned by the Royal Society plays to such hopes.
What do people think about genome editing? Part I
Questions about a recent survey by the Royal Society In March 2018, the Royal Society of the UK published the results of a survey about genome editing that it had commissioned. Survey specialists had asked over 2,000 Brits about their views on potential uses of the technology, which is portrayed as a representative snapshot. … Continue reading What do people think about genome editing? Part I
“In the Image of our Choosing” – Christianity Today’s Piece on Genome Editing
The current issue of the journal Christianity Today has a three-page story on genome editing, written by pastor-theologian Dr Nathan Barczi called "In the Image of our Choosing” (Christianity Today, March 2017: pp. 48–51). Founded by Billy Graham 60 years ago, the journal describes itself as the "leading, nonprofit media ministry for the evangelical church". … Continue reading “In the Image of our Choosing” – Christianity Today’s Piece on Genome Editing
Genome editing: The report by the American National Academies
The American National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on genome editing ten days ago. Here's their brief presentation, and the document itself can be downloaded here. Here are some of the crucial points about the document. 1. What are the conclusions of the NAS report on genome editing? a. Somatic … Continue reading Genome editing: The report by the American National Academies
The Economist on ethics and reproductive technologies
The latest issue of the Economist addresses new developments in the biotech sector. The occasion is both the 20th anniversary of the cloned sheep Dolly as well as the recent report by the American National Academy of the Sciences on genome editing. The issue is opened with a one-page editorial called "Sex and science". Below … Continue reading The Economist on ethics and reproductive technologies
The human animal: Evolution and transhumanist enhancements
There's no doubt that we humans share strong evolutionary ties with other animals. But it's not at all clear what that means in ethics.
“Love drugs”: Questioning “emotional enhancement”
"Love drugs": Questioning "emotional enhancement" What would happen if we were able to help our most significant relationships through a rough stretch with a puff of hormones from a nasal spray? Where do you draw the liine between realism and manipulation?
Ethics caught in the thicket of nature and creation: Sandel part II
At first glance, Sandel’s argument against an ever-wider extension of human power may seem attractive. But does it hold up to critical scrutiny?
GENETHICS 