线粒体替代疗法和亲子关系

Q1 Arts and Humanities
M. Garasic, D. Sperling
{"title":"线粒体替代疗法和亲子关系","authors":"M. Garasic, D. Sperling","doi":"10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The year 2015 has been a decisive year for the future of mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) – at least in the Western world. Currently, the UK and the US governments are undergoing a process of ethical and scientific evaluation of the technique to decide whether to allow its implementation or not. MRT requires the fusion of the DNA of three parents (although of a minimal percentage in the case of one of the two female genitors) into an embryo – and this creates a number of worries as to what this scientific innovation will lead to. These worries might be well placed and worthy of consideration, but not on the grounds presented by some opponents. In this paper, we will analyse a recent European Union (EU) petition that urged the UK government (but which could be applied to the US government as well) to refrain from legalising MRT, stressing that other techniques, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), already have a more direct eugenic potential than MRT. Although the UK Parliament recently voted in favour of MRT, an analysis of the EU petition can nonetheless still contribute to understanding some of the key aspects of the debate. Our conclusion is that what seems to be really at stake, instead, is whether or not we are willing to reconceptualise our notion of parenthood as something not necessarily binominal and genetically related.","PeriodicalId":36835,"journal":{"name":"Global Bioethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"198 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mitochondrial replacement therapy and parenthood\",\"authors\":\"M. Garasic, D. Sperling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The year 2015 has been a decisive year for the future of mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) – at least in the Western world. Currently, the UK and the US governments are undergoing a process of ethical and scientific evaluation of the technique to decide whether to allow its implementation or not. MRT requires the fusion of the DNA of three parents (although of a minimal percentage in the case of one of the two female genitors) into an embryo – and this creates a number of worries as to what this scientific innovation will lead to. These worries might be well placed and worthy of consideration, but not on the grounds presented by some opponents. In this paper, we will analyse a recent European Union (EU) petition that urged the UK government (but which could be applied to the US government as well) to refrain from legalising MRT, stressing that other techniques, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), already have a more direct eugenic potential than MRT. Although the UK Parliament recently voted in favour of MRT, an analysis of the EU petition can nonetheless still contribute to understanding some of the key aspects of the debate. Our conclusion is that what seems to be really at stake, instead, is whether or not we are willing to reconceptualise our notion of parenthood as something not necessarily binominal and genetically related.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"198 - 205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1066082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

对于线粒体替代疗法(MRT)的未来来说,2015年是决定性的一年——至少在西方世界是这样。目前,英国和美国政府正在对这项技术进行伦理和科学评估,以决定是否允许实施。MRT需要将三个父母的DNA融合到一个胚胎中(尽管对于两个女性祖先中的一个来说,这一比例很小),这就产生了许多关于这一科学创新将导致什么的担忧。这些担忧可能是有道理的,值得考虑,但不是基于一些反对者提出的理由。在本文中,我们将分析最近欧盟(EU)的一份请愿书,该请愿书敦促英国政府(但也可以适用于美国政府)避免将MRT合法化,并强调其他技术,如植入前遗传学诊断(PGD),已经比MRT具有更直接的优生潜力。尽管英国议会最近投票支持MRT,但对欧盟请愿书的分析仍然有助于理解这场辩论的一些关键方面。我们的结论是,真正关键的似乎是,我们是否愿意重新定义父母的概念,认为它不一定是二项和基因相关的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mitochondrial replacement therapy and parenthood
The year 2015 has been a decisive year for the future of mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) – at least in the Western world. Currently, the UK and the US governments are undergoing a process of ethical and scientific evaluation of the technique to decide whether to allow its implementation or not. MRT requires the fusion of the DNA of three parents (although of a minimal percentage in the case of one of the two female genitors) into an embryo – and this creates a number of worries as to what this scientific innovation will lead to. These worries might be well placed and worthy of consideration, but not on the grounds presented by some opponents. In this paper, we will analyse a recent European Union (EU) petition that urged the UK government (but which could be applied to the US government as well) to refrain from legalising MRT, stressing that other techniques, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), already have a more direct eugenic potential than MRT. Although the UK Parliament recently voted in favour of MRT, an analysis of the EU petition can nonetheless still contribute to understanding some of the key aspects of the debate. Our conclusion is that what seems to be really at stake, instead, is whether or not we are willing to reconceptualise our notion of parenthood as something not necessarily binominal and genetically related.
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
Global Bioethics
Global Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
37 weeks
×
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