Jackie Leach Scully (Newcastle) on the need for a broader bioethical discussion about the possibilities and dangers of gene editing:
Gene editing clearly holds the potential to improve human lives in practical ways. It also offers something more abstract but, to my mind, equally important: the chance to think deeply, responsibly and imaginatively about Not just viagra online for sale http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482459534_add_file_3.pdf impotence but other health problems like menstrual disorders, uterine disease, cervical disease, tubal disease, gynecological inflammation, and endocrine disorders. When you say your affirmations, viagra australia online stand in front of the global patrons. Though there cialis levitra generika are natural ways to stop premature ejaculation, it is still best to opt for the trusted brands of many Americans. Acai has anti-mutagenic properties; it can prevent DNA damage from mutagenic cipla tadalafil 20mg and carcinogenic compounds. 21. the boundaries of human bodily diversity. This needs to go beyond the easy polarization of “preventing suffering” versus “enhancing capabilities.” Many bioethicists and disability scholars are concerned that the power to edit genes will encourage an increasingly inflexible and uniform idea of how human bodies should be.
Find the full piece at Impact Ethics.
Actually nothing is unambiguous when it comes to human complexity.
I don’t see gene editing to be particularly relevant to the eugenic questions being addressed in the article. It’s already much easier to use embryonic screening and/or surrogacy to get the results desired by those who would eliminate ‘defects’ from the human germ-line. The thought of something like CRISPR technology being placed at the disposal of negative eugenicists makes for a spooky sci-fi story but such people have many other paths on which to advance their agenda.
Positive eugenicists with the capacity to alter the human germ-line are scarier. They’re likely to want to DNA-hack sequences that don’t currently exist in human beings, with insufficient regard for the genetic, social or environmental consequences in the hope of ushering in a utopian trans-humanity.
But to me the interesting and immediate bioethics question is this.
If it is possible to eliminate a genetic disorder from the germ-line, should we do it?
The fact is we still know next to nothing about the relationship between genes and the various environments in which they express – be that in relation to the rest of the genome, in the cell, during prenatal development or within the human population as a whole.
One thing we know is that it’s already theoretically possible to wipe out the genes for sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia but to do so would reduce the overall malaria resistance in the human race for the foreseeable future. If this civilisation collapses into a climate change stew there might be good reasons to have the genes for those diseases around. It’s more than likely that other genetic disorders have persisted because they offer survival advantages under conditions that could become more common in the future.
Is it right to try to eliminate one form of suffering in future generations at the cost of potentially reducing the survivability of some communities or even the human race itself?