Did a permissive scientific culture encourage the 'CRISPR babies' experiment?

Nature Biotechnology 27:350-369 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We review the Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2018 report on germline gene editing and show how its shortcomings are part of an increasingly permissive climate among elite scientists that may well have emboldened the Chinese 'CRISPR babies' experiment. Without a robust and meaningful airing of the perils of human germline modification, these views are likely to encourage additional, more mainstream moves in the same dangerous direction.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

“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.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
Human germline editing: a historical perspective.Michel Morange - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39 (4):34.
Do You Suppose They Want Gm Babies?Cristian Fuschetto - 2018 - Scienza E Filosofia 20:216-224.
Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?Eric T. Juengst - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23.
Trust in Science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing.Stephan Guttinger - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (4):1077-1096.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-06-19

Downloads
56 (#279,626)

6 months
5 (#629,136)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Donna Dickenson
Birkbeck, University of London

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references