基因驱动生物和滑坡。

IF 4.9 4区 医学 Q1 PARASITOLOGY
Pathogens and Global Health Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895
David B Resnik, Raul F Medina, Fred Gould, George Church, Jennifer Kuzma
{"title":"基因驱动生物和滑坡。","authors":"David B Resnik, Raul F Medina, Fred Gould, George Church, Jennifer Kuzma","doi":"10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The bioethical debate about using gene drives to alter or eradicate wild populations has focused mostly on issues concerning short-term risk assessment and management, governance and oversight, and public and community engagement, but has not examined big-picture- 'where is this going?'-questions in great depth. In other areas of bioethical controversy, big-picture questions often enter the public forum via slippery slope arguments. Given the incredible potential of gene drive organisms to alter the Earth's biota, it is somewhat surprising that slippery slope arguments have not played a more prominent role in ethical and policy debates about these emerging technologies. In this article, we examine a type of slippery slope argument against using gene drives to alter or suppress wild pest populations and consider whether it has a role to play in ethical and policy debates. Although we conclude that this argument does not provide compelling reasons for banning the use of gene drives in wild pest populations, we believe that it still has value as a morally instructive cautionary narrative that can motivate scientists, ethicists, and members of the public to think more clearly about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of gene drive technologies, the long-term and cumulative and emergent risks of using gene drives in wild populations, and steps that can be taken to manage these risks, such as protecting wilderness areas where people can enjoy life forms that have not been genetically engineered.</p>","PeriodicalId":19850,"journal":{"name":"Pathogens and Global Health","volume":" ","pages":"348-357"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11234912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genes drive organisms and slippery slopes.\",\"authors\":\"David B Resnik, Raul F Medina, Fred Gould, George Church, Jennifer Kuzma\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The bioethical debate about using gene drives to alter or eradicate wild populations has focused mostly on issues concerning short-term risk assessment and management, governance and oversight, and public and community engagement, but has not examined big-picture- 'where is this going?'-questions in great depth. In other areas of bioethical controversy, big-picture questions often enter the public forum via slippery slope arguments. Given the incredible potential of gene drive organisms to alter the Earth's biota, it is somewhat surprising that slippery slope arguments have not played a more prominent role in ethical and policy debates about these emerging technologies. In this article, we examine a type of slippery slope argument against using gene drives to alter or suppress wild pest populations and consider whether it has a role to play in ethical and policy debates. Although we conclude that this argument does not provide compelling reasons for banning the use of gene drives in wild pest populations, we believe that it still has value as a morally instructive cautionary narrative that can motivate scientists, ethicists, and members of the public to think more clearly about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of gene drive technologies, the long-term and cumulative and emergent risks of using gene drives in wild populations, and steps that can be taken to manage these risks, such as protecting wilderness areas where people can enjoy life forms that have not been genetically engineered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pathogens and Global Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"348-357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11234912/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pathogens and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PARASITOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathogens and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于使用基因驱动改变或消灭野生种群的生物伦理争论主要集中在短期风险评估和管理、治理和监督以及公众和社区参与等问题上,而没有深入研究大背景问题--"这将走向何方?在生物伦理争议的其他领域,大视野问题往往通过滑坡论证进入公共论坛。鉴于基因驱动生物具有改变地球生物群的惊人潜力,令人惊讶的是,在有关这些新兴技术的伦理和政策辩论中,"滑坡 "论点并没有发挥更突出的作用。在本文中,我们将探讨一种反对使用基因驱动改变或抑制野生害虫种群的滑坡论点,并考虑它是否能在伦理和政策辩论中发挥作用。尽管我们得出的结论是,这一论点并不能为禁止在野生害虫种群中使用基因驱动技术提供令人信服的理由,但我们认为,作为一种具有道德指导意义的警示性叙述,它仍然具有价值,可以促使科学家、伦理学家和公众更清楚地思考基因驱动技术的适当与不适当使用、在野生种群中使用基因驱动技术的长期、累积和新出现的风险,以及可以采取哪些措施来管理这些风险,例如保护人们可以享受未经基因工程改造的生命形式的野生区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Genes drive organisms and slippery slopes.

The bioethical debate about using gene drives to alter or eradicate wild populations has focused mostly on issues concerning short-term risk assessment and management, governance and oversight, and public and community engagement, but has not examined big-picture- 'where is this going?'-questions in great depth. In other areas of bioethical controversy, big-picture questions often enter the public forum via slippery slope arguments. Given the incredible potential of gene drive organisms to alter the Earth's biota, it is somewhat surprising that slippery slope arguments have not played a more prominent role in ethical and policy debates about these emerging technologies. In this article, we examine a type of slippery slope argument against using gene drives to alter or suppress wild pest populations and consider whether it has a role to play in ethical and policy debates. Although we conclude that this argument does not provide compelling reasons for banning the use of gene drives in wild pest populations, we believe that it still has value as a morally instructive cautionary narrative that can motivate scientists, ethicists, and members of the public to think more clearly about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of gene drive technologies, the long-term and cumulative and emergent risks of using gene drives in wild populations, and steps that can be taken to manage these risks, such as protecting wilderness areas where people can enjoy life forms that have not been genetically engineered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pathogens and Global Health
Pathogens and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-PARASITOLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pathogens and Global Health is a journal of infectious disease and public health that focuses on the translation of molecular, immunological, genomics and epidemiological knowledge into control measures for global health threat. The journal publishes original innovative research papers, reviews articles and interviews policy makers and opinion leaders on health subjects of international relevance. It provides a forum for scientific, ethical and political discussion of new innovative solutions for controlling and eradicating infectious diseases, with particular emphasis on those diseases affecting the poorest regions of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信