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.
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
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