Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (12):819-823 (2017)

Abstract
The ease and applicability of CRISPR/Cas9––a new and precise gene editing and reproductive technology––have garnered hype and heightened concern about its potential ‘unprecedented and horrific consequences’ and have led many scientific leaders to call for a moratorium on its research and use. CRISPR appears distinctly more controversial than previous technological innovations, with a greater reach and speed of human treatment and enhancement; however, we have seen similarly inflated hopes and fears in response to other medical innovations for well over a century. One intervention that has both historically and recently incited alarm––vaccines––serves as a pertinent example of what could go wrong if a technology's reach is shortened due to inflated fears. By comparing the vaccine controversy and the CRISPR debate, we can help separate the hype from the realistic potential of these technologies. How our society grapples with such innovations will determine the extent to which their impact on our individual and collective health will be beneficial. We must recognise the need for a tempered approach to CRISPR conversation leading to regulation and ethical application. Although CRISPR's reach will continue expanding with ongoing research, thus requiring continuous evaluation, the lessons we have learned from the vaccine controversy demonstrate that our approach must not be to shut down regulation and application now, but to thoughtfully conjoin productive debate and action so that therapeutic gene editing can alleviate suffering as soon as possible without precipitating social outcomes we would belatedly deplore.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2016-103666
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,464
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and the 'New' Eugenics.D. S. King - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (2):176-182.
Screening for Disability: A Eugenic Pursuit?John Gillott - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (suppl 2):21-23.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

“Editing”: A Productive Metaphor for Regulating CRISPR.Ben Merriman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):62-64.
CRISPR Becomes Clearer.Andrew W. Torrance - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (5):5-6.
The Mechanism and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9.Paul Scherz - 2017 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (1):29-36.
CRISPR Critters and CRISPR Cracks.R. Alta Charo & Henry T. Greely - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):11-17.
Human germline editing: a historical perspective.Michel Morange - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (4):34.
Trust in Science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing.Stephan Guttinger - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (4):1077-1096.
Rewriting the Code of Life.Jennifer A. Doudna - 2017 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17 (1):37-41.
Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds.John Harris - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):30-34.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-24

Total views
30 ( #383,633 of 2,520,426 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,426 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes