Vulnerable groups and the hollow promise of benefit from human gene editing

Bioethics 35 (6):574-580 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Mainstream academic debate on the ethics of human gene editing is currently not as inclusive as it should be. For example, it currently does not give due consideration to Indigenous groups and cultures, such as those living in rural and remote areas of Canada. Once such people are given due consideration, then several important points emerge, which have so far gone unnoticed or under‐emphasized in the debate. This article focuses on two of those points: (a) Some vulnerable people who are currently being ignored in the debate may not desire to use gene editing, even if it is safe, effective and affordable, and they will have compelling reasons for making this decision; and (b) even if such people do decide to use the technology, the gene editing enterprise itself is unlikely to do much good for them (and may even be harmful to them), as it alarmingly misses the point regarding the underlying contributing causes of the most pressing problems that those people are facing. Therefore, the promise of the gene editing enterprise is a hollow one for some groups of vulnerable people. These considerations should be used more prominently to guide debate on the ethics of human gene editing.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,707

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Gene Editing, the Mystic Threat to Human Dignity.Vera Lúcia Raposo - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (2):249-257.
Who Goes First? Deaf People and CRISPR Germline Editing.Carol Padden & Jacqueline Humphries - 2020 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (1):54-65.
Public views on gene editing and its uses.Hub Zwart, George Gaskell & Imre Bard - 2017 - Nature Biotechnology 35 (11):121-123.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
Daoism, Flourishing, and Gene Editing.Richard Kim - 2019 - In Erik Parens & Josephine Johnston (eds.), Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing. Oxford University Press. pp. 72-85.
Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?Eric T. Juengst - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23.
Gene Editing and Journal Editing.Trevor Stammers - 2018 - The New Bioethics 24 (1):1-1.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-05-12

Downloads
28 (#583,929)

6 months
6 (#575,766)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ryan Tonkens
Dalhousie University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations