Human Genetic Manipulation Research Articles

Ethical Issues of Embryo Genetic Manipulation

Ethical Issues of Embryo Genetic Manipulation

ASGCT and JSGT Joint Position Statement on Human Genomic Editing

The American Society for Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) and the Japan Society of Gene Therapy (JSGT) (collectively, “Our Societies”) recognize the great scientific advancement represented by the techniques of genome editing and their vast potential value for an improved understanding and possible treatment of human disease. These techniques provide uniquely powerful tools for generating models of human disease, for characterizing the molecular and biochemical basis for pathogenesis, and for suggesting approaches to definitive correction of genetic defects underlying much of human disease. However, our Societies also recognize that the application of genome editing under some circumstances poses very serious ethical problems for which there is no scientific or general societal consensus and that should be considered as inappropriate human genetic manipulation until and unless serious scientific and ethical concerns can be resolved.

Transhumanism and Roman Catholicism: Imagined and Real Tensions

Transhumanists have asserted that religious people would both oppose life extension and allowing people with extended lives to die. In this paper, coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, I refute four myths associated with these claims: that the Church materially opposes life extension, that it conceptually opposes the very idea of life extension, that it opposes human genetic manipulation, and that it opposes letting people die in hospitals. I then propose that there are four real tensions that are much more significant: that material immortality is highly improbable, that injustice and inequality are major concerns, that transhuman omnipotence is impossible, and that utopianism is extremely dangerous.

Animal genetic manipulation--a utilitarian response.

I examine the process and outcomes of animal genetic manipulation ('transgenesis') with reference to its morally salient features. I consider several objections to transgenesis. I examine and reject the alleged intrinsic wrongness of 'deliberate genetic sequence alteration,' as I do the notion that transgenesis may lead to human genetic manipulation. I examine the alleged wrongness of killing inherent in transgenesis, and suggest that the concept of 'replaceability' successfully justifies such killing, although not for entities deemed to possess 'personhood.' I examine 'significant suffering' associated with transgenesis and propose the radical conclusion that, although it would be wrong to prohibit animal genetic manipulation per se, utilitarians ought to support a 'default prohibition' on transgenic experiments that entail significant suffering.

Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation.

Clinical trials of gene therapy are underway in different countries, and further countries can be expected to use gene therapy soon. Little remains known, however, about public perceptions of gene therapy. Nationwide mail response opinion surveys were conducted in Japan in August-October, 1991. A total of 54% of the public, 65% of the high school biology teachers, and 54% of the scientists who responded said that they would be willing to use gene therapy, and 66%, 73%, and 62%, respectively, said that they would be willing to use gene therapy on their children. There appears to be growing acceptance of gene therapy in Japan, although about one-quarter of the population are against it. The underlying reasoning behind the acceptability of human genetic manipulation and perceived benefits and risks are presented, and these were found to be generally similar to reasoning expressed in a similar survey conducted in New Zealand in May, 1990. Public perceptions are also compared to those in Europe and the United States. People perceive both benefits and risks from genetic manipulation. There appears to be more teaching of ethical, social, and environmental issues associated with genetic engineering in senior high school biology classes in New Zealand than in Japan. In Japan and New Zealand, about 90% of the public would support including discussion of social issues associated with science and technology in the curriculum.

Oaks and Cacti

Daniel J. Kevles's new book will strike a responsive chord in many quarters. Ever since Arthur Jensen suggested in 1969 that different racial genetic endowments accounted for differences in I.Q. test performance between blacks and whites, that old chestnut, nature versus nurture, has been hotly debated in many forums. In writing this book Kevles has been mindful of that debate. Eugenics or the science of breeding a better race has become a word of ugly connotation (p. ix). In the first half of this century much cruelty and oppression have resulted from eugenics and the misinterpretations of genetic science, he argues. In more recent times, Kevles insists, the subject of eugenics casts a shadow over all contemporary discourse concerning human genetic manipulation (p. ix). It is this from the past to the present and future theme or perspective Kevles uses to frame his book. Kevles is not the first historian of American or British eugenics. But he is the first to write a unified account of eugenics in what he dubs AngloAmerica from the late nineteenth century to the present day. He has written a history of the British and American eugenics movements and the two national sciences of human genetics in the belief that these four phenomena form a consolidated larger whole. The book has many virtues. His discussion of human genetics since 1930 is a genuine contribution. Some of his interpretations of the eugenics movement are fresh. The book is based upon thorough research; it provides much information; and it is extremely well written. Its chief disappointment is that its analytical and interpretive apparatus does not always support the burdens placed upon it. The book's ultimate assumptions may be challenged, and the parts of the book do not constitute the larger whole claimed for them. The 1930s mark the watershed in this enchantingly told story. Before then, organized eugenics prospered far more in public life than human genetics did in the worlds of science. Man could not be easily studied with the techniques and concepts then available to genetics. Kevles begins with chapters on the