Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12):91-91 (2021)

Abstract
The past few years have brought significant breakthroughs in understanding human genetics. This knowledge has been used to develop ‘polygenic scores’ which provide probabilistic information about the development of polygenic conditions such as diabetes or schizophrenia. They are already being used in reproduction to select for embryos at lower risk of developing disease. Currently, the use of polygenic scores for embryo selection is subject to existing regulations concerning embryo testing and selection. Existing regulatory approaches include ‘disease-based' models which limit embryo selection to avoiding disease characteristics, and 'laissez-faire' or 'libertarian' models, under which embryo testing and selection remain unregulated. We introduce a novel 'Welfarist Model' which limits embryo selection according to the impact of the predicted trait on well-being. We compare the strengths and weaknesses of each model as a way of regulating polygenic scores. Polygenic scores create the potential for existing embryo selection technologies to be used to select for a wider range of predicted genetically influenced characteristics including continuous traits. Indeed, polygenic scores exist to predict future intelligence, and there have been suggestions that they will be used to make predictions within the normal range in the USA in embryo selection. We examine how these three models would apply to the prediction of non-disease traits such as intelligence. The genetics of intelligence remains controversial both scientifically and ethically. This paper does not attempt to resolve these issues. However, as with many biomedical advances, an effective regulatory regime must be in place as soon as the technology is available. If there is no regulation in place, then the market effectively decides ethical issues.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106588
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: 71,512
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics.Robert Sparrow - 2007 - Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
Reformulating Mill’s Harm Principle.Ben Saunders - 2016 - Mind 125 (500):1005-1032.
Can We Learn From Eugenics?D. Wikler - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (2):183-194.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gaps in Embryo Model Ethics.Kevin Wilger - 2020 - Ethics and Medics 45 (10):1-4.
Natural Selection and Population Diversity.A. C. Allison - 1969 - Journal of Biosocial Science 1 (S1):15-30.
Embryo Models Derived From Stem Cells.Kevin Wilger - 2019 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 19 (3):391-399.
Oocyte Cytoplasm Transfers and the Ethics of Germ-Line Intervention.John A. Robertson - 1998 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (3):211-220.
Oocyte Cytoplasm Transfers and the Ethics of Germ-Line Intervention.John A. Robertson - 1998 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (3):211-220.
The Ethics of Using Genetic Engineering for Sex Selection.S. Liao - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):116-118.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-01-19

Total views
10 ( #903,856 of 2,520,967 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #205,180 of 2,520,967 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes