编辑人类基因组

Marcelo De Araujo
{"title":"编辑人类基因组","authors":"Marcelo De Araujo","doi":"10.55613/jeet.v27i1.65","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2015 a team of scientists used a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genome of 86 non-viable human embryos. The experiment sparked a global debate on the ethics of gene editing. In this paper, I first review the key ethical issues that have been addressed in this debate. Although there is an emerging consensus now that research on the editing of human somatic cells for therapeutic purpose should be pursued further, the prospect of using gene-editing techniques for the purpose of human enhancement has been met with strong criticism. The main thesis that I defend in this paper is that some of the most vocal objections recently raised against the prospect of genetic human enhancement are not justified. I put forward two arguments for the morality of genetic human enhancement. The first argument shows how the moral and legal framework within which we currently claim our procreative rights, especially in the context of IVF procedures, could be deployed in the assessment of the morality and legality of genetic human enhancement. The second argument calls into question the assumption that the average level of human cognitive performance should have a normative character.","PeriodicalId":157018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies","volume":"8 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editing the Genome of Human Being\",\"authors\":\"Marcelo De Araujo\",\"doi\":\"10.55613/jeet.v27i1.65\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2015 a team of scientists used a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genome of 86 non-viable human embryos. The experiment sparked a global debate on the ethics of gene editing. In this paper, I first review the key ethical issues that have been addressed in this debate. Although there is an emerging consensus now that research on the editing of human somatic cells for therapeutic purpose should be pursued further, the prospect of using gene-editing techniques for the purpose of human enhancement has been met with strong criticism. The main thesis that I defend in this paper is that some of the most vocal objections recently raised against the prospect of genetic human enhancement are not justified. I put forward two arguments for the morality of genetic human enhancement. The first argument shows how the moral and legal framework within which we currently claim our procreative rights, especially in the context of IVF procedures, could be deployed in the assessment of the morality and legality of genetic human enhancement. The second argument calls into question the assumption that the average level of human cognitive performance should have a normative character.\",\"PeriodicalId\":157018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v27i1.65\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v27i1.65","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

2015年,一组科学家使用一种名为CRISPR-Cas9的新型基因编辑技术编辑了86个无法存活的人类胚胎的基因组。该实验引发了一场关于基因编辑伦理的全球辩论。在本文中,我首先回顾了在这场辩论中已经解决的关键伦理问题。虽然现在有一种新兴的共识,即应该进一步开展以治疗为目的的人类体细胞编辑研究,但以人类增强为目的使用基因编辑技术的前景遭到了强烈的批评。我在这篇论文中要捍卫的主要论点是,最近对人类基因增强前景提出的一些最强烈的反对意见是不合理的。我对人类基因增强的道德性提出了两个论点。第一个论点表明,我们目前主张我们的生育权利的道德和法律框架,特别是在体外受精程序的背景下,如何在评估人类基因增强的道德和合法性方面进行部署。第二个论点对人类认知表现的平均水平应该具有规范性特征的假设提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Editing the Genome of Human Being
In 2015 a team of scientists used a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR-Cas9 to edit the genome of 86 non-viable human embryos. The experiment sparked a global debate on the ethics of gene editing. In this paper, I first review the key ethical issues that have been addressed in this debate. Although there is an emerging consensus now that research on the editing of human somatic cells for therapeutic purpose should be pursued further, the prospect of using gene-editing techniques for the purpose of human enhancement has been met with strong criticism. The main thesis that I defend in this paper is that some of the most vocal objections recently raised against the prospect of genetic human enhancement are not justified. I put forward two arguments for the morality of genetic human enhancement. The first argument shows how the moral and legal framework within which we currently claim our procreative rights, especially in the context of IVF procedures, could be deployed in the assessment of the morality and legality of genetic human enhancement. The second argument calls into question the assumption that the average level of human cognitive performance should have a normative character.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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