{"title":"原因与繁殖:基因编辑与遗传选择。","authors":"Jeff McMahan, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2023.2250288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many writers in bioethics, science, and medicine contend that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic disorders then gene editing, as the latter has risks that the former does not. We argue that one reason to use gene editing is that in many cases it would be <i>better</i> for the person who would develop from the edited embryo, so that not to have done it would have been <i>worse for</i> that person. By contrast, embryo selection is never better for the person who develops from the selected embryo. This reason to use gene editing has, however, been challenged on two grounds: first, that it makes no difference, morally, whether a bad effect is worse for someone, or a good effect better for someone; and, second, that beneficent gene editing would not be unequivocally better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo. We argue that both of these objections can be satisfactorily answered and thus that there is indeed a significant moral reason, at least in some cases, to use gene editing rather than embryo selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":50962,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11361295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection.\",\"authors\":\"Jeff McMahan, Julian Savulescu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15265161.2023.2250288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many writers in bioethics, science, and medicine contend that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic disorders then gene editing, as the latter has risks that the former does not. We argue that one reason to use gene editing is that in many cases it would be <i>better</i> for the person who would develop from the edited embryo, so that not to have done it would have been <i>worse for</i> that person. By contrast, embryo selection is never better for the person who develops from the selected embryo. This reason to use gene editing has, however, been challenged on two grounds: first, that it makes no difference, morally, whether a bad effect is worse for someone, or a good effect better for someone; and, second, that beneficent gene editing would not be unequivocally better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo. We argue that both of these objections can be satisfactorily answered and thus that there is indeed a significant moral reason, at least in some cases, to use gene editing rather than embryo selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11361295/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2250288\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2250288","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection.
Many writers in bioethics, science, and medicine contend that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic disorders then gene editing, as the latter has risks that the former does not. We argue that one reason to use gene editing is that in many cases it would be better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo, so that not to have done it would have been worse for that person. By contrast, embryo selection is never better for the person who develops from the selected embryo. This reason to use gene editing has, however, been challenged on two grounds: first, that it makes no difference, morally, whether a bad effect is worse for someone, or a good effect better for someone; and, second, that beneficent gene editing would not be unequivocally better for the person who would develop from the edited embryo. We argue that both of these objections can be satisfactorily answered and thus that there is indeed a significant moral reason, at least in some cases, to use gene editing rather than embryo selection.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) is a renowned global publication focused on bioethics. It tackles pressing ethical challenges in the realm of health sciences.
With a commitment to the original vision of bioethics, AJOB explores the social consequences of advancements in biomedicine. It sparks meaningful discussions that have proved invaluable to a wide range of professionals, including judges, senators, journalists, scholars, and educators.
AJOB covers various areas of interest, such as the ethical implications of clinical research, ensuring access to healthcare services, and the responsible handling of medical records and data.
The journal welcomes contributions in the form of target articles presenting original research, open peer commentaries facilitating a dialogue, book reviews, and responses to open peer commentaries.
By presenting insightful and authoritative content, AJOB continues to shape the field of bioethics and engage diverse stakeholders in crucial conversations about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and society.