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!.
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.
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
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
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?
In discussing genome editing, we often distinguish between therapy and "improvement." This does not seem to do justice to people with disabilities, however. An increasing number of people with disabilities say that they don't live up to society's standards of functioning, and they are tired of being reduced to such a perceived lack – part of living "in a world that isn’t built with us in mind", in the words of one commentator.