Somatic cell gene therapy has yielded promising results. If germ cell gene therapy can be developed, the promise is even greater: hundreds of genetic diseases might be virtually eliminated. But some claim the procedure is morally unacceptable. We thoroughly and sympathetically examine several possible reasons for this claim but find them inadequate. There is no moral reason, then, not to develop and employ germ-line gene therapy. Taking the offensive, we argue next (...) that medicine has a prima facie moral obligation to do so. (shrink)

Germ-line gene therapy, like many other medical technologies, raises questions of special concern to Christians. It not only raises questions about medical effects, actual or possible, of genetic interventions that would be inherited from one generation to another but also, more importantly, raises anthropological questions and so questions about parental attitudes. These are questions about the dignity and value of human life, about inter-human relations and about the God-human relationship.1 For this reason the paper starts with (...) an exploration of the implications of Christian anthropology, viewed from a Roman Catholic perspective. A set of conditions will be specified in the light of which germ-line gene therapy’s compatibility with Christian attitudes, a Christian understanding of the human being, and the meaning of human life can be assessed. (shrink)

Although the ability to perform gene therapy in human germ-line cells is still hypothetical, the rate of progress in molecular and cell biology suggests that it will only be a matter of time before reliable clinical techniques will be within reach. Three sets of arguments are commonly advanced against developing those techniques, respectively pointing to the clinical risks, social dangers and better alternatives. In this paper we analyze those arguments from the perspective of the client-centered ethos (...) that traditionally governs practice in medical genetics. This perspective clarifies the merits of these arguments for geneticists, and suggests useful new directions for the professional discussion of germ-line gene therapy. It suggests, for example, that the much discussed prospect of germ-line therapy in human pre-embryos may always be more problematic for medical genetics than adult germ-line interventions, even though the latter faces greater technical difficulties. (shrink)

The classification of techniques used in mitochondrial donation, including their role as purported germ-line gene therapies, is far from clear. These techniques exhibit characteristics typical of a variety of classifications that have been used in both scientific and bioethics scholarship. This raises two connected questions, which we address in this paper: how should we classify mitochondrial donation techniques?; and what ethical implications surround such a classification? First, we outline how methods of genetic intervention, such as germ- (...) class='Hi'>line gene therapy, are typically defined or classified. We then consider whether techniques of mitochondrial donation fit into these, whether they might do so with some refinement of these categories, or whether they require some other approach to classification. To answer the second question, we discuss the relationship between classification and several key ethical issues arising from mitochondrial donation. We conclude that the properties characteristic of mitochondrial inheritance mean that most mitochondrial donation techniques belong to a new sub-class of genetic modification, which we call ‘conditionally inheritable genomic modification’. (shrink)

With pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), genetic testing and selective transfer of embryos is possible. In the future, germ-line gene therapy (GLGT) applied to embryos before implantation, in order to introduce missing genes or replace mutant ones, may be possible. The objective of this dissertation is to analyse moral aspects of these technologies, as described by eighteen British, Italian and Swedish gynaecologists and geneticists. The objective is systematised into three parts: research interviews and qualitative analysis, philosophical analysis, (...) and elaboration of a framework that supports the combination of analytic methods. PGD was described as positive since it enabled some couples at risk for a genetic disease to have a child without the disease. PGD was described as in different senses ‘better’ than methods for prenatal diagnosis and selective termination of pregnancy. It was also described as positive since it provided couples at risk with one more option, even if it did not result in the birth of a healthy child. However, interviewees were concerned about the difficulty of defining and evaluating genetic disease. They were also concerned about patients’ choices, and about exaggerated use or misuse. Whereas PGD gave rise to ambivalence in terms of how to understand, describe and evaluate it, GLGT was often described as unrealistic or undesirable. The results of the qualitative analysis are used in a philosophical analysis of the concepts of choice, autonomous choice, ambivalence, trust and ambivalence in trust relations. A set of distinct characteristics of each concept are elaborated. The results of the philosophical analysis are used in the discussion of the results of the qualitative analysis. The study shows that the technologies imply both ‘new’ ways to perform ‘old’ medical practices and ‘new’ practices. Old moral questions are reformulated. New moral questions are added. Against the background of this, the concept of genetic identity is discussed. Key words: empirical ethics, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, germ-line gene therapy, qualitative research, philosophical analysis, medical progress, genetic disease, choice, autonomous choice, ambivalence, trust, genetic identity. (shrink)

This paper attempts to debunk the slippery-slope argument against human germ-line gene therapy by showing that the downside of the slope – genetic enhancement – need not be as unethical or unjust as some people have supposed. It argues that if genetic enhancement is governed by proper regulations and is accompanied by adequate education, then it need not violate recognized principles of morality or social justice. Keywords: germ-line therapy, slippery slope argument, future generations, (...) social justice CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Recombinant DNA technology will soon allow physicians an opportunity to carry out both somatic cell- and Germ-Line gene therapy. While somatic cell gene therapy raises no new ethical problems, gene therapy of gametes, fertilized eggs or early embryos does raise several novel concerns. The first issue discussed here relates to making a distinction between negative and positive eugenics; the second issue deals with the evolutionary consequences of lost genetic diversity. In distinguishing between (...) positive and negative eugenics, the concept of malady is applied as a definitional criterion for identifying genetic disorders that could qualify for Germ-Line therapy. Because gene replacement techniques are currently unavailable for humans, and because even if they were possible the number of people involved would be quite small, the loss of diversity concern seems moot. Finally, we dissuss the issue of iatrogenic disorders associated with gene therapy and discuss several ‘real world considerations.’. (shrink)

Recently it has been argued that some instances of germ‐line gene therapy will change the identity of the person who receives the benefit of therapy, and that in these instances there is no good moral reason to conduct germ‐line gene therapy. Against this we argue that even if gene therapy should have an effect on the identity of the resulting person, this would not diminish the urgency of the (...) class='Hi'>therapy. Not only would impersonal moral reasons speak in favour of such radical gene therapy, there would also be person‐affecting reasons to perform it. (shrink)

In this paper I deal with ethical factors surrounding germline gene therapy. Such implications include intergenerational responsibility, human dignity, moral status of embryos and so on. I will explore the relevance of the above mentioned issues to discuss the ethical implication of human germline gene therapy (HGLT). We will see that most of arguments claimed by bioethicists do not provide valid reason to oppose HGLT. I will propose an alternative view, based on personal identity issues, to (...) discuss the ethics of human inheritable gene modification. (shrink)

Despite widespread agreement that it would be ethical to use somatic cell gene therapy to correct serious diseases, there is still uneasiness on the part of the public about this procedure. The basis for this concern lies less with the procedure's clinical risks than with fear that genetic engineering could lead to changes in human nature. Legitimate concerns about the potential for misuse of gene transfer technology justify drawing a moral line that includes corrective germline (...) class='Hi'>therapy but excludes enhancement interventions in both somatic and germline contexts. Keywords: somatic cell, germ line, genetic diseases, genetic engineering, humanness, enhancement, eugenics CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Any suggestion of altering the genetic makeup of human beings through gene therapy is quite likely to provoke a response involving some reference to a 'slippery slope'. In this article the author examines the topography of two different types of slippery slope argument, the logical slippery slope and the rhetorical slippery slope argument. The logical form of the argument suggests that if we permit somatic cell gene therapy then we are committed to accepting germ (...) class='Hi'>line gene therapy in the future because there is no logically sustainable distinction between them. The rhetorical form posits that allowing somatic cell therapy now will be taking the first step on a slippery slope which will ultimately lead to the type of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. The author tests the validity of these lines of argument against the facts of human gene therapy and concludes that because of their dependence on probabilities that cannot be empirically proven they should be largely disregarded in the much more important debate on moral line-drawing in gene therapy. (shrink)

The article investigates the validity of two different versions of the slippery slope argument construed in relation to human gene therapy: the empirical and the conceptual argument. The empirical version holds that our accepting somatic cell therapy will eventually cause our accepting eugenic medical goals. The conceptual version holds that we are logically committed to accepting such goals once we have accepted somatic cell therapy. It is argued that neither the empirical nor the conceptual version of (...) the argument can provide a conclusive moral reason for banning somatic cell therapy. According to a third interpretation, referred to as the arbitrary result argument, the many apparent similarities between somatic cell therapy and eugenic-based human genetic engineering drive us to make principled choices concerning what differences and similarities between the two practices should be regarded as morally (ir)relevant. Decisions of this kind are likely to have unpredictable moral consequences. Thus formulated, the slippery slope argument has much plausibility. One objects to somatic cell therapy not so much because of what is at the bottom of the slope on which it lies, but because it is on a slope of which one does not know what is at the bottom. While the arbitrary result argument does not provide a conclusive reason for prohibiting human gene therapy, it reminds of a very important thing: when making bioethical decisions, we should be as specific and as consistent as possible about our basic moral and medical concepts. (shrink)

types of application of genetic engineering for the insertion of genes into humans. The scientific requirements and the ethical issues associated with each type are discussed. Somatic cell gene therapy is technically the simplest and ethically the least controversial. The first clinical trials will probably be undertaken within the next year. Germ line gene therapy will require major advances in our present knowledge and it raises ethical issues that are now being debated. In order (...) to provide guidelines for determining when germ line gene therapy would be ethical, the author presents three criteria which should be satisfied prior to the time that a clinical protocol is attempted in humans. Enhancement genetic engineering presents significant, and troubling, ethical concerns. Except where this type of therapy can be justified on the grounds of preventive medicine, enhancement engineering should not be performed. The fourth type, eugenic genetic engineering, is impossible at present and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future, despite the widespread media attention it has received. Keywords: genetic engineering, somatic cells, germ cells, enhancement, eugenics, humanhood CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

To discern the ethical issues involved incurrent gene therapy research, to explore theproblems inherent in possible future genetherapies, and to encourage debate within thescientific community about ethical questionsrelevant to both, we surveyed American Societyof Human Genetics scientists who engage inhuman genetics research. This study of theopinions of U.S. scientific experts about theethical issues discussed in the literature ongene therapy contributes systematic data on theattitudes of those working in the field as wellas elaborative comments. Our survey finds thatrespondents (...) are highly supportive of thepotential use of somatic cell gene therapy tocure serious diseases in adults and children aswell as prospective offspring. A clearmajority, however, believe that using suchgenetic techniques for enhancement purposes isunacceptable. Delineating the line betweendisease/disorder and improvement/enhancementposes a problem not easily resolved and oneconducive to the growth of slippery-slopeapprehensions. The majority of respondents alsoadvocate germ-line therapy, in theory at least,and under similar restrictions, but theyrecognize the roadblock that the existence ofunanticipated negative consequences currentlypresents. Another complex matter involvestrying to determine appropriate reasons forchoosing target diseases for research, forwhich the dichotomy between rare single-geneand common multifactorial diseases reveals anongoing dilemma. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Human Gene TherapyMary Carrington Coutts (bio)On September 14, 1990, researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) performed the first approved gene therapy procedure on a four-year-old girl named Ashanti DeSilva. Born with a rare genetic disease, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Ashanti lacked a healthy immune system and was extremely vulnerable to infection. Children with SCID usually develop overwhelming infections and rarely survive to (...) adulthood; even a common childhood illness like chicken pox is life-threatening. Ashanti led a cloistered existence, avoiding contact with people outside her family, remaining in the sterile environment of her home, and battling frequent illnesses with massive amounts of antibiotics.In Ashanti's gene therapy procedure, her own white blood cells were genetically modified and then infused back into her bloodstream. Laboratory tests show that the therapy has strengthened Ashanti's immune system. She no longer has recurrent colds, has been allowed to attend school, and has been immunized against whooping cough. This gene therapy procedure is not a cure, however. The genetically-treated white blood cells only survive for a few months and must then be replaced, but Ashanti's future is much brighter because of the new therapy (VI, Thompson [The First] 1993).Although this simplified description of Ashanti's gene therapy procedure sounds like a happy ending, it is little more than an optimistic chapter in a long story. The road to the first approved gene therapy procedure was rocky and fraught with controversy. The biology of human gene therapy is very complex, and there are still many techniques that need to be developed and diseases that need to be understood more fully before gene therapy is well established. The public policy debate surrounding the possible use of genetically engineered material in human subjects is equally complex. Major participants in the debate come from the fields of biology, government, law, medicine, philosophy, politics, and religion, each bringing different views to the discussion.In studying the ethics of gene therapy, one should draw a distinction between [End Page 63] therapy on somatic (non-reproductive) cells and germ (reproductive) cells. Only the germ cells carry the genes that will be passed on to the next generation. Reactions to gene therapy have varied widely. Some commentators on gene therapy object to any form of genetic manipulation, no matter how well-intentioned (VI, Rifkin 1983). Another reaction is to allow the use of somatic-cell therapy, but not to approve the use of germ-line therapy, which could have unforeseeable effects on future generations. A different stance is that, with proper regulation and safeguards, germ-line gene therapy is a logical extension of the progress made to date and that it is an ethically acceptable procedure.TechniquesTo date, 43 research protocols have been approved for somatic-cell gene therapy in the United States. The techniques employed in each protocol vary, but in general a virus is used as a "vector" to insert the desired gene into the DNA of the patient's cells, in order to compensate for a defective gene. For Ashanti's gene therapy, this technique involved obtaining white blood cells and introducing properly functioning genes into as many of the cells as possible. The normal genes were delivered through the use of a specially-engineered virus.Although similar techniques are used in germ-line gene therapy, the procedure is more difficult. There are two basic ways to perform germ-line gene therapy: (1) to treat a preimplantation embryo that carries a serious genetic defect before its implantation in the mother, which necessitates the use of in vitro fertilization techniques; or (2) to treat the germ cells (sperm or egg cells) of afflicted adults so that the genetic defects would not be passed on to their offspring, which requires the technical expertise to delete the defective gene and insert a properly functioning replacement. Because of the complexity of the procedures involved and the attendant ethical controversy, germ-line therapy is not currently performed.Candidate Diseases for Gene TherapyAt present, gene therapy is likely to be most successful in treating diseases that are caused by single-gene defects and has been approved for treating diseases such... (shrink)

Technical, ethical, and social questions of germ-line gene interventions have been widely discussed in the literature. The majority of these discussions focus on planned interventions executed on the nuclear DNA (nDNA). However, human cells also contain another set of genes that is the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). As the characteristics of the mtDNA grossly differ from those of nDNA, so do the social, ethical, psychological, and safety considerations of possible interventions on this part of the genetic substance.

Technical, ethical, and social questions of germ-line gene interventions have been widely discussed in the literature. The majority of these discussions focus on planned interventions executed on the nuclear DNA (nDNA). However, human cells also contain another set of genes that is the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). As the characteristics of the mtDNA grossly differ from those of nDNA, so do the social, ethical, psychological, and safety considerations of possible interventions on this part of the genetic substance.

Enhancements of the human germ-line introduce further inequalities in the competition for scarce goods, such as income and desirable social positions. Social inequalities, in turn, amplify the range of genetic inequalities that access to germ-line enhancements may produce. From an egalitarian point of view, inequalities can be arranged to the benefit of the worst-off group (for instance, through general taxation), but the possibility of an indefinite growth of social and genetic inequality raises legitimate concerns. It is (...) argued that inequalities produced by markets of germ-line enhancements are just if it they are embedded in a framework of social institutions that satisfies two conditions: (i) Rawls’ Difference Principle, which states that inequalities of income and wealth should benefit the worst-off group; (ii) the lexically prior 'principle of rough equality', which states that citizens’ initial life-chances should be similar enough, so that extreme inequalities in income, wealth and power are not produced or accumulated through institutions justified by the Difference Principle. The principle of rough equality replaces the Rawlsian principles of the Fair Value of the Political Liberties and Fair Equality of Opportunity in a post-genomic society and expresses a concern with background political equality, which is argued to be a condition of the freedom and equality of citizens that should not be traded off with material benefits. Extreme inequalities are defined in terms of political equality. (shrink)

The application of genetic editing techniques for the prevention or cure of disease is a highly promising tool for the future of humanity. However, its implementation contains a number of ethical and legal challenges that should not be underestimated. On this basis, some sectors have already asked for a veto on any intervention that modifies the human germ line, while supporting somatic line editing. In this paper, I will support that this suggestion makes no sense at all, (...) because the somatic/germ line disjunctive has no moral relevance and, therefore, it should not play any role in legal terms. I will provide a number of reasons to hold this assumption, such as the non‐sacred nature of the germ line, the difference between germ line and human genome modification, or the moral importance of the presence of a will to create modified descendants. While doing so, I will provide some examples of the different approaches to germ line editing adopted by different regulations so as to demonstrate that, contrary to what is sometimes stated, a general ban on this practice is not the rule, but the exception. Additionally, I will show how alternative options which currently exist, such as a selective ban based on criteria different to the germ line/somatic line distinction, match better with the need to conciliate research needs and legitimate ethical concerns. Finally, I will introduce some further suggestions to this same purpose. (shrink)

Germ-line genetic interventions, like all medicine, can present opportunities to remove suffering, save and prolong human life, and support the conditions for successful human performance. Like all medicine, these interventions also present risks that reflect fallen humans’ age-old egocentric ambition to secure their health and improve their quality of life by relying exclusively on their own power, wisdom, and technical means. Moreover, man has always been tempted to overstep Divine prohibitions and to disregard his own calling to become (...) deified by grace. Wherever man succumbs to such tendencies, this inescapably leads to a disruption of the vital relationship between man and God. The legitimacy of the intervention itself depends on the theological status of the genome. Orthodox theology recognizes that the human genome, just as everything else that is created, must be understood in terms of its relationship to God. This consideration, however, does not mean that it can be idolized or is therefore untouchable. Interventions and alterations can be accepted within the constraints set by God, as formulated in the theology of creative logoi of beings in the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, and thus in view of man’s divine vocation. The Christian acceptability or inacceptability of human germ-line gene therapy depends directly on the extent to which it accords with an Orthodox spiritual life, or else hinders such a life. In this sense, this intervention can be examined in the same way as the application of all medical knowledge. When this is used to relieve pain and is motivated by selfless love for one’s neighbor, then it can be considered God’s gift to humankind. When, however, it becomes an absolute and attempts to usurp the presence of God in human life, then use becomes abuse and modern man faces yet another form of idolatry, even though more refined than earlier forms. (shrink)

In 1982, the President's Commission produced its report on human gene therapy. One of that report's recommendations was to expand the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health to include a subcommittee on human gene therapy. In 1984, the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee was established, and in 1989 it produced a document—“Points to Consider for Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA into Human Subjects”—that stated the RAC's position on what sorts (...) of protocols it would approve.In assessing the impact of the President's Commission report, Alexander Capron wrote,[t]he line [the report] drew between somatic cell and germ-line therapies has shaped subsequent discussions and policy formulation. Its conclusion … that somatic cell therapy resembles medical treatment is the basic premise of the RAC subcommittee's “Points to Consider,” while the Commission's view that ethical as well as technical barriers preclude present attempts to alter germ cells continues to be generally accepted by scientists and nonscientists alike. (shrink)

In 1982, the President's Commission produced its report on human gene therapy. One of that report's recommendations was to expand the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health to include a subcommittee on human gene therapy. In 1984, the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee was established, and in 1989 it produced a document—“Points to Consider for Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA into Human Subjects”—that stated the RAC's position on what sorts (...) of protocols it would approve.In assessing the impact of the President's Commission report, Alexander Capron wrote,[t]he line [the report] drew between somatic cell and germ-line therapies has shaped subsequent discussions and policy formulation. Its conclusion … that somatic cell therapy resembles medical treatment is the basic premise of the RAC subcommittee's “Points to Consider,” while the Commission's view that ethical as well as technical barriers preclude present attempts to alter germ cells continues to be generally accepted by scientists and nonscientists alike. (shrink)

Gene therapy is the modification of the human genetic code to prevent disease or cure illness. This technology is in its infancy and remains confined to experimental clinical trials. Once the present barriers are overcome, gene therapy will confront humanity with a host of ethical challenges. Therapies targeted to the genes of germ-line cells will introduce permanent changes to the human gene pool. Furthermore, nonmedical gene modifications have the potential to introduce a (...) new form of eugenics into our society by which some members attempt to become inherently superior to others and humanity is re-engineered to man-made specifications. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10.1 (Spring 2010): 45–50. (shrink)

The cases for and against somatic gene therapy, germ-line gene therapy and gene therapy for enhancement are assessed. It is argued that none of these kinds of therapy is inherently wrong, and that an adequate assessment should consist in weighing risks and benefits. On this basis, it is argued that somatic therapy is a promising new kind of treatment that we should welcome; that we have technologies available that make (...) class='Hi'>germ-line therapy superfluous, unless we want to engage in enhancement engineering; and that although we should be extremely cautious if we were to engage in enhancement engineering, we cannot categorically rule out that there might be cases in which this kind of therapy should be applied, e.g. if it was the only way of saving millions of lives. (shrink)

Contributors to the debate surrounding the ethics of germ line gene manipulation have by and large concentrated their efforts on discussions of the potential risks that are associated with the use of this technology. Many international advisory committees have ruled out the acceptability of germ line gene manipulation at least for the time being. The purpose of this work is to generate much needed discussion on the many other ethical issues concerning the implementation of (...) not only germ line gene manipulation but also other related biotechnologies. In this paper I systematically investigate and analyse the most salient issues put forward by proponents and opponents alike. I argue that if germ line manipulation proves to be a safe and effective procedure, then the principle of beneficence imposes on the medical profession a moral duty to pursue the technology. (shrink)

The rationale for pursuing the development and use of Germ-Line selection and modification techniques is examined in this essay. The argument is put forth that it is the moral obligation of the medical profession to make available to the public any technology that can cure or prevent pathology leading to death and disability, in both the present and future generations. Society should pursue the development of strategies for preventing or correcting, at the Germ-Line level, genetic features (...) that will lead to, or enhance, pathological conditions. Because prenatal screening and even early embryo screening and selection can prevent only a subset of known genetic disorders, direct genetic intervention is the only way in which certain couples can exercise their rights to reproductive health. Finally, the arguments most often raised against the pursuit of and use of methods for Germ-Line intervention shall be discussed. Keywords: Germ-Line therapy, pre-implantation embryo screening gamete modification, risk and uncertainty CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

The combination of genuine ethical concerns and fear of learning to use germ-line therapy for human disease must now be confronted. Until now, no established techniques were available to perform this treatment on a human. Through an integration of several fields of science and medicine, we have developed a nine step protocol at the germ-line level for the curative treatment of a genetic disease. Our purpose in this paper is to provide the first method to (...) apply germ-line therapy to treat those not yet born, who are destined to have a life threatening, or a severely debilitating genetic disease. We hope this proposal will initiate the process of a thorough analysis from both the scientific and ethical communities. As such, this proposal can be useful for official groups studying the advantages and disadvantages of germ-line therapy. (shrink)

The line between Germ-Line genetic therapy and somatic cell is more and more difficult to discern. With new abilities to effect Germ-Line genetic therapy it is less clear why such therapy should not be undertaken. Nonetheless, questions persist as to who is the patient in such therapy and about the extent of discretion that should be allowed prospective parents and the physician/researcher. Keywords: embryo, Germ-Line, patient, somatic therapy CiteULike (...) Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2020, Page 27-29.

Recently, Chinese researchers published the results of their research using a gene-editing technology on abnormal human zygotes. The research team believes this research has prospective clinical application, viz., for gene therapy for?-thalassemia, a white blood cell disorder, and plan to persist with further studies, despite technical problems in this experiment. The research has elicited international criticism from both scientific and bioethics domains, because it innovates beyond the current global consensus against human germ line modification. This (...) paper comments on some ethical issues presented by the research report and concludes that, under present circumstances, the Chinese research team did not meet a standard of scientific responsibility.Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015 Vol.6 (1):22-26. (shrink)

What is the impact of genetics and genomics on issues of identity and what do we mean when we speak of identity? This paper explores how certain concepts of identity used in philosophy can be brought together in a multi-layered concept of identity. It discusses the concepts of numerical, qualitative, personal and genetic identity-over-time as well as rival concepts of genomic identity-over-time. These are all understood as layers in the multi-layered concept of identity. Furthermore, the paper makes it clear that (...) our understanding of genomic identity and the importance attached to genomic sameness-over-time matters for the ethical questions raised by certain new gene technologies. (shrink)

Germ-line therapy has long been regarded with great caution both by scientists and by ethicists. Even those who do not reject germ-line therapy in principle have tended to reject it in practice as carrying unacceptable risks in our current state of knowledge. For this reason, a recent paper by Rubenstein, Thomasma, Shon, and Zinaman is unusual in putting forward a serious proposal for the use of germ-line therapy in the foreseeable future.

Testing embryonic cells for genetic abnormalities gives us the capacity to predict whether and to what extent people will exist with disease and disability. Moreover, the freezing of embryos for long periods of time enables us to alter the length of a normal human lifespan. After highlighting the shortcomings of somatic‐cell gene therapy and germ‐line genetic alteration, I argue that the testing and selective termination of genetically defective embryos is the only medically and morally defensible way (...) to prevent the existence of people with severe disability, pain and suffering that make their lives not worth living for them on the whole. In addition, I consider the possible harmful effects on children born from frozen embryos after the deaths of their biological parents, or when their parents are at an advanced age. I also explore whether embryos have moral status and whether the prospects for disease‐preventing genetic alteration can justify long‐term cryopreservation of embryos. (shrink)

: The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify (...) a distinction between human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified. (shrink)

Sexually reproducing metazoans establish a cell lineage during development that is ultimately dedicated to gamete production. Work in a variety of animals suggests that a group of conserved molecular determinants act in this germ line maintenance and function. The most universal of these genes are Vasa and Vasa‐like DEAD‐box RNA helicase genes. However, recent evidence indicates that Vasa genes also function in other cell types, distinct from the germ line. Here we evaluate our current understanding of (...) Vasa function and its regulation during development, addressing Vasa's emerging role in multipotent cells. We also explore the evolutionary diversification of the N‐terminal domain of this gene and how this impacts the association of Vasa with nuage‐like perinuclear structures. (shrink)

This paper discusses the issue of whether we have responsibilities to future generations with respect to genetic screening, including for purposes of selective abortion or discard. Future generations have been discussed at length among scholars. The concept of ‘Guardianfor Future Generations’ is tackled and its main criticisms discussed. Whilst germ-line cures, it is argued, can only affect family trees, genetic screening and testing can have wider implications. If asking how this may affect future generations is a legitimate question (...) and since we indeed make retrospective moral judgements, it would be wise to consider that future generations will make the same retrospective judgements on us. Moreover such technologies affect present embryos to which we indeed can be considered to have an obligation. (shrink)

This article is a response to David Jones’s “Germ-line Genetic Engineering: A Critical Look at Magisterial Catholic Teaching.” Here, Jones argues that the Magisterium’s teaching is inadequate in relation to germ-line genetic engineering (GGE) in that it neither settles the question of whether all GGE is illicit nor does it bring theological resources to bear on the issue. Jones himself argues against GGE, stating that it is not a therapy for a specific individual and that (...) using the technique is incompatible with the theology of marriage because children are not accepted as gifts. I argue that there is merit in Jones’s reasoning, as GGE can certainly be used in a manner contrary to the theology of marriage. However, I am less convinced as to whether Jones actually manages to make the case that GGE, in and of itself, may not be morally permissible. I would certainly agree with his ultimate conclusion that further theological reflection is needed. (shrink)

August Weismann proposed that genetic changes in somatic cells cannot pass to germ cells and hence to next generations. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that some environmental effects can promote heritable changes in the DNA of germ cells, which implies that some somatic influence on germ line is possible. This influence is mostly detrimental and related to the presence of oxidative stress, which induces mutations and epigenetic changes. This effect should be stronger in males due to the (...) particular characteristics of sperm. Here, we propose the hypothesis that females are able to avoid males with oxidatively damaged DNA in the germ line by using oxidative‐dependent (pre‐ and post‐mating) signals. This new hypothesis may shed light on unsolved questions in evolutionary biology, such as the benefits of polyandry, the lek paradox, or the role of sexual selection on the evolution of aging. BioEssays 30:1212–1219, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

This article is written from within the Catholic, and more particularly the Augustinian/Thomist tradition of moral theology. It analyses the response of the Catholic Magisterium to the prospect of germline-genetic engineering (GGE). This is a very new issue and the Church has little definitive teaching on it. The statements of Popes and Vatican congregations or commissions have not settled the key questions. An analysis of theological themes drawn from secular writers points beyond pragmatic safety considerations toward intrinsic ethical limits to (...) GGE. Given the impossibility of identifying would-have-been-created persons who would be “treated” by this intervention, altering the human genome for the sake of future generations cannot be regarded as “therapy.” Further theological considerations suggest that GGE may not be morally permissible, even in the case of identifiable genetic diseases. This is an area where more theological reflection is needed. (shrink)

Reproductive biotechnologies can separate concepts of parenthood into genetic, gestational and social dimensions, often leading to a fragmentation of heteronormative kinship models and posing a challenge to historical methods of establishing legal and/or moral parenthood. Using fictional cases, this article will demonstrate that the issues surrounding the intersection of current and emerging reproductive biotechnologies with definitions of parenthood are already leading to confusion regarding social and legal family ties for offspring, which is only expected to increase as new technologies develop. (...) Rather than opposing these new technologies to reassert traditional concepts of the family, however, this article will explore the opportunities that these technologies represent for re‐imagining various culturally cherished values of family‐making in a way that is inclusive of diverse genders, sexualities and cultures. It will consider IVF, gametogenesis, mitochondrial donation, surrogacy, artificial gestation, CRISPR‐Cas9 gene editing, foster care and adoption as some of many possible pathways to parenthood, including for members of the LGBTIAUQ+ community. (shrink)

This essay presents a hypothesis which contends that the development of organismic complexity in the eukaryotes depended extensively on propagation via flagellated and ciliated gametes. Organisms utilizing flagellate and ciliate gametes to propagate their germ line have contributed most of the organismic complexity found in the higher animals. The genes of the flagellum and the flagellar assembly system (intraflagellar transport) have played a disproportionately important role in the construction of complex tissues and organs. The hypothesis also proposes that (...) competition between large numbers of haploid flagellated male gametes rigorously conserved the functionality of a key set of flagellar genes for more than 700 million years. This in turn has insured that a large set (>600) of highly functional cytoskeletal and signal pathway genes is always present in the lineage of organisms with flagellated or ciliated gametes to act as a dependable resource, or “toolkit,” for organ elaboration. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/lC5nC-WOcm8. (shrink)