{"title":"Ethical choreography in China’s Human Gene Editing controversy","authors":"Larry Au","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2218401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT He Jiankui announced to the world in November 2018 that his team had genetically edited twin human embryos that were then brought to term. Recruiting participants through an HIV outreach group and using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, He targeted the CCR5 genes claiming this would make the children immune to HIV. One way to understand He’s case is through Charis Thompson’s concept of ethical choreography, which shows how scientists ‘invent around’ potential ethical objections to their work. In particular, such a focus on ethical choreography traces how individual scientists can exploit ambiguity in institutional boundaries to recombine different logics to advance their vision of good, innovative, and ethical science. He’s actions can be seen to been the result of his traversal of blurred boundaries that demarcate science/market and science/medicine in order to recombine academic, market, medical, and cultural logics. This combination of logics is seen in ethical justifications that He put forth for his experiment, which provoked much criticism and controversy, but should nonetheless be taken seriously and placed in context. While He’s vision of good science was rejected, examples of ethical choreography can be found in other instances of biomedical innovation and there remains the potential for other scientists to pick up where He left off. Following the ethical choreography of scientists also allows for more specificity in discussions about what and when boundaries should be strengthened or relaxed in order to advance a more equitable vision of science and technology.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2218401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT He Jiankui announced to the world in November 2018 that his team had genetically edited twin human embryos that were then brought to term. Recruiting participants through an HIV outreach group and using CRISPR/Cas9 technology, He targeted the CCR5 genes claiming this would make the children immune to HIV. One way to understand He’s case is through Charis Thompson’s concept of ethical choreography, which shows how scientists ‘invent around’ potential ethical objections to their work. In particular, such a focus on ethical choreography traces how individual scientists can exploit ambiguity in institutional boundaries to recombine different logics to advance their vision of good, innovative, and ethical science. He’s actions can be seen to been the result of his traversal of blurred boundaries that demarcate science/market and science/medicine in order to recombine academic, market, medical, and cultural logics. This combination of logics is seen in ethical justifications that He put forth for his experiment, which provoked much criticism and controversy, but should nonetheless be taken seriously and placed in context. While He’s vision of good science was rejected, examples of ethical choreography can be found in other instances of biomedical innovation and there remains the potential for other scientists to pick up where He left off. Following the ethical choreography of scientists also allows for more specificity in discussions about what and when boundaries should be strengthened or relaxed in order to advance a more equitable vision of science and technology.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.