Eric Juengst, Michael A. Flatt, John M. Conley, Arlene Davis, Gail Henderson, Douglas MacKay, Rami Major, Rebecca L. Walker, R. Jean Cadigan
{"title":"Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance","authors":"Eric Juengst, Michael A. Flatt, John M. Conley, Arlene Davis, Gail Henderson, Douglas MacKay, Rami Major, Rebecca L. Walker, 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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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。
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.