Genome editing: From bioethics to biopolitics

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2021-05-05 DOI:10.1057/s41292-021-00229-5

Robert Sparrow, Catherine Mills

引用次数: 0

Abstract

While CRISPR/Cas9 has become a lightning rod for fears about humanity’s increasing capacity to engineer biological life, the mainstream of Anglo-American bioethics struggles to discern much wrong with genome editing of human beings in vitro. In this paper, we analyze the notion of biopolitics and consider what contribution it may make to debates on genome editing. We disambiguate the different senses of two key terms: ‘biopolitics’, and ‘life’, and try to show how particular authors in the biopolitics literature draw on and emphasize different versions of these concepts. In the final section of the paper, we venture some suggestions as to the contribution that a number of these approaches might make to moving beyond a focus on risk and individual liberty to address the urgent bioethical questions surrounding the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit the human genome.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基因组编辑：从生物伦理到生物政治

尽管 CRISPR/Cas9 已成为人们对人类日益增强的生物工程能力感到恐惧的避雷针，但英美生物伦理学的主流却很难发现体外人类基因组编辑有什么问题。在本文中，我们分析了生物政治学的概念，并考虑了它对基因组编辑辩论可能做出的贡献。我们区分了两个关键术语的不同含义：生物政治学 "和 "生命 "这两个关键术语的不同含义，并试图说明生物政治学文献中的特定作者是如何借鉴和强调这些概念的不同版本的。在本文的最后一部分，我们大胆地提出了一些建议，希望这些方法能够超越对风险和个人自由的关注，解决围绕使用CRISPR/Cas9编辑人类基因组的紧迫的生物伦理问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.