通过 CRISPR-Cas9 技术进行人类胚胎编辑的伦理问题:对伦理论点、原因和担忧的系统回顾》。

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Lindsay Wiley, Mattison Cheek, Emily LaFar, Xiaolu Ma, Justin Sekowski, Nikki Tanguturi, Ana Iltis
{"title":"通过 CRISPR-Cas9 技术进行人类胚胎编辑的伦理问题:对伦理论点、原因和担忧的系统回顾》。","authors":"Lindsay Wiley, Mattison Cheek, Emily LaFar, Xiaolu Ma, Justin Sekowski, Nikki Tanguturi, Ana Iltis","doi":"10.1007/s10730-024-09538-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos has generated significant discussion and interest as a matter of science and ethics. While it holds significant promise to prevent or treat disease, research on and potential clinical applications of human embryo editing also raise ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This systematic review included 223 publications to identify the ethical arguments, reasons, and concerns that have been offered for and against the editing of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We identified six major themes: risk/harm; potential benefit; oversight; informed consent; justice, equity, and other social considerations; and eugenics. We explore these themes and provide an overview and analysis of the critical points in the current literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Wiley, Mattison Cheek, Emily LaFar, Xiaolu Ma, Justin Sekowski, Nikki Tanguturi, Ana Iltis\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10730-024-09538-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos has generated significant discussion and interest as a matter of science and ethics. While it holds significant promise to prevent or treat disease, research on and potential clinical applications of human embryo editing also raise ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This systematic review included 223 publications to identify the ethical arguments, reasons, and concerns that have been offered for and against the editing of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We identified six major themes: risk/harm; potential benefit; oversight; informed consent; justice, equity, and other social considerations; and eugenics. We explore these themes and provide an overview and analysis of the critical points in the current literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hec Forum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hec Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09538-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09538-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

编辑人类胚胎基因组的可能性引起了科学和伦理方面的广泛讨论和关注。虽然人类胚胎编辑在预防或治疗疾病方面大有可为,但人类胚胎编辑的研究和潜在临床应用也引发了伦理、监管和安全方面的担忧。本系统性综述收录了 223 篇出版物,以确定支持和反对使用 CRISPR-Cas9 技术编辑人类胚胎的伦理论点、理由和担忧。我们确定了六大主题:风险/危害;潜在益处;监督;知情同意;正义、公平和其他社会因素;以及优生学。我们对这些主题进行了探讨,并对当前文献中的关键点进行了概述和分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.

The possibility of editing the genomes of human embryos has generated significant discussion and interest as a matter of science and ethics. While it holds significant promise to prevent or treat disease, research on and potential clinical applications of human embryo editing also raise ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This systematic review included 223 publications to identify the ethical arguments, reasons, and concerns that have been offered for and against the editing of human embryos using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We identified six major themes: risk/harm; potential benefit; oversight; informed consent; justice, equity, and other social considerations; and eugenics. We explore these themes and provide an overview and analysis of the critical points in the current literature.

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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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