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.
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!.
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
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" 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?
How do science and faith shape the way we think about memory? This also has implications for how we think about enhancements. https://scienceandbelief.org/2016/12/08/forgetting-in-order-to-remember-how-science-and-faith-shape-how-we-think-of-memory/
In the age of genome editing, the question of genetic enhancements takes on new urgency. The philosopher Michael Sandel published an influential critique, which this post reviews.