预防性人类基因组编辑和增强:候选管理标准。

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Eric Juengst, Michael A. Flatt, John M. Conley, Arlene Davis, Gail Henderson, Douglas MacKay, Rami Major, Rebecca L. Walker, R. Jean Cadigan
{"title":"预防性人类基因组编辑和增强:候选管理标准。","authors":"Eric Juengst,&nbsp;Michael A. Flatt,&nbsp;John M. Conley,&nbsp;Arlene Davis,&nbsp;Gail Henderson,&nbsp;Douglas MacKay,&nbsp;Rami Major,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Walker,&nbsp;R. Jean Cadigan","doi":"10.1002/hast.4913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for “enhancement” remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call “preventive strengthening research” (or “PSR”) to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals’ resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three “candidate criteria” merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 5","pages":"14-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance\",\"authors\":\"Eric Juengst,&nbsp;Michael A. Flatt,&nbsp;John M. Conley,&nbsp;Arlene Davis,&nbsp;Gail Henderson,&nbsp;Douglas MacKay,&nbsp;Rami Major,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Walker,&nbsp;R. Jean Cadigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.4913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for “enhancement” remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call “preventive strengthening research” (or “PSR”) to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals’ resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three “candidate criteria” merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"54 5\",\"pages\":\"14-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4913\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4913","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体细胞编辑用于治疗疾病已被广泛接受,但将人类基因组编辑用于 "增强 "仍有争议。科学家和政策制定者经常把 "增强 "的前景作为人类基因组编辑研究面临的一个突出的伦理挑战。如果预防性基因组编辑项目被视为追求人类增强,那么它们在获得科学、公众和监管部门批准时可能会面临更多障碍。本文概述了我们所称的 "预防性强化研究"(或 "PSR"),通过这个例子来探讨,在生物医学认为的人类功能范围之外,努力增强个体对疾病的抵抗力如何可能被解释为追求人类功能的增强。参与制定 PSR 指南的人员需要把握好预防目标与增强影响之间的关系。本文指出并批评了其中的三种观点,以预测 PSR 的更广泛出现,以及对追求 PSR 的规范性方法的需求。所有三个 "候选标准 "都值得关注,但每个标准都面临着挑战,需要在进一步制定研究政策时加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance

While somatic cell editing to treat disease is widely accepted, the use of human genome editing for “enhancement” remains contested. Scientists and policy-makers routinely cite the prospect of enhancement as a salient ethical challenge for human genome editing research. If preventive genome editing projects are perceived as pursuing human enhancement, they could face heightened barriers to scientific, public, and regulatory approval. This article outlines what we call “preventive strengthening research” (or “PSR”) to explore, through this example, how working to strengthen individuals’ resistance to disease beyond what biomedicine considers to be the human functional range may be interpreted as pursuing human enhancement. Those involved in developing guidance for PSR will need to navigate the interface between preventive goals and enhancement implications. This article identifies and critiques three of these ideas in the interest of anticipating the wider emergence of PSR and the need for a normative approach for its pursuit. All three “candidate criteria” merit attention, but each also faces challenges that will need to be addressed as further research policy is developed.

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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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