Book Review: [i]Creating Future People: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Enhancement[/i

This paper considers children’s rights with respect to genetic enhancement (GE). It is focused on the futuristic prospect of postnatal GE, namely, genetic modifications in vivo, of actual existing individuals. More specifically, the paper examines whether, in a future reality where pre- and postnatal human GE is safely and prevalently practiced, a child would have a right to be genetically enhanced by her parents or guardians, as well as the right not to be genetically enhanced. It is in fact the postnatal phase, inhabited by persons of indisputable moral status, subject of rights against others, which makes the child’s putative right (not) to be genetically enhanced a relevant and legitimate subject of exploration. Since postnatal GE is a futuristic technology, an appropriate, concrete, rights-discourse has not yet been developed. In this paper I therefore, attempt to initiate such discourse, by identifying, through legal analysis, potential sources for the child's right to be genetically enhanced, and theorize theorizing about its nature (derivative, or a newly created independent right; positive or negative right). I begin by considering several (mostly) contemporary candidate core rights, from which the child’s right (not) to be genetically enhanced could potentially derive, ; next, I consider the child’s right not to be genetically enhanced, through ethical analysis; finally, I and then look into the merits of creating such a novel right of the child. I conclude, that the direct translation of the child's interests in being genetically enhanced, into any kind of recognised positive or negative right – whether derivative or a newly emerging independent right – is unlikely. As per the putative child's right not to be genetically enhanced postnatally, I determine that such a right could be recognized as a relative right, balanced against parental autonomy in rearing and shaping one's child.

When discussing genetic prenatal enhancement, we often encounter objections related to “eugenics.” Those who want to defend prenatal enhancement either try to avoid using the term “eugenics” or talk about “liberal eugenics”, implying that what was wrong with the old eugenics was its coercive character, and claiming that while old eugenics went against reproductive freedom, the new liberal eugenics promotes freedom. In this paper we first explore the objection that genetic enhancement is a form of eugenics that limits parental freedom. We then show how the same objection appears in other bioethical debates. Finally, we answer the objection, showing that genetic enhancement does not limit reproductive freedom in any important sense.

Advances in the understanding of genetics have led to the belief that it may become possible to use genetic engineering to manipulate the DNA of humans at the embryonic stage...

Evaluation of Genetic Enhancement: Will Human Wisdom Properly Acknowledge the Value of Evolution?

Ethical debates around genetic enhancement tend to include an argument that the technology will eventually be fairly accessible once available. That we can fairly distribute genetic enhancement has become a...

Patent protection for genetic enhancements would tend to spur genetic innovation, but would tend to limit access to those genetic enhancements through discriminatory mechanisms such as price and favoritism. The patent system would likely ensure high rates of genetic enhancement innovation, research, and development, efficiently mediate access to genetic enhancements, but would also likely allow access to genetic enhancements to fewer members of society. Most importantly, the patent system has the potential to promote the kinds of genetic enhancements that might lead to human evolutionary change. Public policy and the law must grapple with the implications of genetic enhancement before current technological possibilities become societal realities. The patent system is an odd candidate to become a substantial arbiter of parental decisions regarding genetic enhancement of their offspring. It is certain that the implications the patent system has for future human genetic enhancement should be subjected to thorough analysis and debate prior to the imminent arrival of human genetic enhancement technologies. Otherwise, patent law may drive human evolution in directions either unplanned - or worse - undesired.

Fresh Juice Incorporated (FJI) is in the process of determining whether it should launch a new fruit juice, Genetically Enhanced (GE) Juice. The GE Juice meets consumers' demands for a tasty, nutritious product and it would be the first new juice product in the last fifteen years. Before FJI decides to launch GE Juice, it must analyze the uncertainty surrounding market size, market share, and price of GE Juice. Finally, if FJI decides to launch GE Juice, then they must decide if they will bottle the juice themselves or outsource this process. This case teaches students how to discuss the strategic implications of launching a new product and develop a net present value and financial feasibility simulation model given limited information.

In a recent article, Gerald McKenny suggests that it is time for religious traditions to put behind them the “tired debate” about whether to support gene therapy (McKenny, 2002). They have, he argues, no good reason for rejecting germ-line gene therapy or genetic enhancements in principle, and even if they may have severe doubts about particular means (e.g., because these may involve the destruction of human embryos), such doubts would vanish if morally acceptable alternative means were to be found. Instead of concerning themselves with efforts to distinguish genetic therapy and enhancement, religious ethicists should concentrate on other matters.KeywordsGenetic ManipulationBulimia NervosaCosmetic SurgeryGenetic TechnologyAesthetic SurgeryThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Rob Sparrow (2019) develops an original argument against (hypothetical) forms of genetic human enhancement. If technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 could be used to improve the human genome by editing ...

Imagine a world in which parents can genetically enhance their child's height so that he becomes a professional basketball player. Or imagine a law school student preparing for the bar who takes out an extra loan to genetically enhance his intelligence. What if going to your physician for a routine physical included the option of genetically enhancing any trait you desired? And what if such a practice was expensive and, therefore, only available to the privileged members of society? Is this desirable or should the U.S. government ban genetic enhancement? What if the government bans it and citizens travel abroad to receive genetic enhancement treatments? Can the U.S. government do anything to prevent access to illegal genetic enhancement abroad?

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.

Some argue that genetic enhancements and environmental enhancements are not importantly different: environmental enhancements such as private schools and chess lessons are simply the old-school way to have a designer...

Pre-natal genetic enhancement affords us unprecedented capacity to shape our skills, talents, appearance and perhaps subsequently the quality of our lives in terms of overall happiness, success and wellbeing. Despite its powerful appeal, some have raised important and equally persuasive concerns against genetic enhancement. Sandel has argued that compassion and humility, themselves grounded in the unpredictability of talents and skills, would be lost. Habermas has argued that genetically altered individuals will see their lives as dictated by their parents’ design and therefore will not acquire an appropriate self-understanding. How should we view enhancement efforts in light of these concerns? I propose that we begin by adopting a defeasibility stance. That is, I ask whether our belief that genetic enhancements serve in the best interests of the child is reason to genetically enhance, underscoring a sort of epistemic vulnerability. I utilize the epistemological notions of defeasible reasons, undercutting (also called undermining) and overriding (or rebutting) defeaters in order to better understand and systematically evaluate the force of such concerns. I argue that close examination of both objections using this framework shows that we have reason to enhance, a reason that is defeasible but as yet, undefeated.

In her recent article, Prince has identified a critical challenge for those who advocate genetic enhancement to reduce social injustices. The gene–environment interaction prevents genetic enhancement from having equitable effects...

Mapping the human genome and advances in human evolution indicate a critical role for genetics in the study of reproduction. Literature in human evolution, genetics and reproduction. This paper will focus on three points: (1) the course of primate evolution, (2) implications of this course for reproduction in humans, and (3) evolutionary mechanisms. Reproduction is the driving force of evolution, and sex selection is the important factor in determining reproductive activity. The hypothesis will be presented that the reproductive inefficiency of Homo sapiens (one of four pregnancies succeeds) is the consequence of the development of genetic isolation from other species of Homo that was necessary to drive the evolution of Homo sapiens. This hypothesis is based on the evidence that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are separate species and that intermating would not yield fertile offspring (Haldane's Rule). This mating barrier involves zoological and linguistic differences and genetic mechanisms preventing fertile interspecies mating (chromosomal incompatibilities, disruption of genomic imprinting and recessive lethal defects). The medical and philosophical implications of modern reproductive technologies that may circumvent mating barriers must be addressed prospectively: propagation of genetic defects that would be eliminated by natural selection; the specter of 'genetic enhancement'; human cloning; and attempts to control the future direction of the evolution of Homo sapiens.