基因组编辑:从过去学习,展望未来。

Judit Sandor
{"title":"基因组编辑:从过去学习,展望未来。","authors":"Judit Sandor","doi":"10.1163/15718093-bja10081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the technical possibility of genome editing, we have reached a new phase of transforming human beings and even altering our genetic legacy. Genome editing constitutes new responsibilities in many fields. Science and society have never been as dependent on each other as they are today. We must also learn from the past episodes of eugenics and we need to investigate fraudulent practices and cases of failure in scientific research that have often occurred due to merciless scientific competition, profit-seeking commercial interests, or individual pride. Genome editing raises numerous legal questions, such as: Would it be possible to make a legal difference between specific versions of gene editing? Who decides on what is considered a disease or an anomaly, a condition, or a variation? Which diseases are worth being corrected or treated and which ones are not? What kinds of social implications will gene editing bring about when it becomes widely available? Some normative distinctions have already been made in the case of gene therapy: separating somatic from germline interventions. But this distinction has not yet been analyzed in the light of the most recent editing practices. Genome editing also realigns the structure of ethical debates. It makes us rethink the concept of discrimination and scrutinize its cases in the field of assisted reproductive procedures. It revolutionizes the concept of medical treatment. It may increase or reduce inequalities based on health conditions. It may lead to numerous new rights in the field of genetics. Good genome editing practice can only be achieved through the close cooperation between the natural and social sciences. The present paper will endeavor to examine this new form of dialogue.</p>","PeriodicalId":43934,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","volume":"29 3-5","pages":"341-358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genome Editing: Learning from Its Past and Envisioning Its Future.\",\"authors\":\"Judit Sandor\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718093-bja10081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With the technical possibility of genome editing, we have reached a new phase of transforming human beings and even altering our genetic legacy. Genome editing constitutes new responsibilities in many fields. Science and society have never been as dependent on each other as they are today. We must also learn from the past episodes of eugenics and we need to investigate fraudulent practices and cases of failure in scientific research that have often occurred due to merciless scientific competition, profit-seeking commercial interests, or individual pride. Genome editing raises numerous legal questions, such as: Would it be possible to make a legal difference between specific versions of gene editing? Who decides on what is considered a disease or an anomaly, a condition, or a variation? Which diseases are worth being corrected or treated and which ones are not? What kinds of social implications will gene editing bring about when it becomes widely available? Some normative distinctions have already been made in the case of gene therapy: separating somatic from germline interventions. But this distinction has not yet been analyzed in the light of the most recent editing practices. Genome editing also realigns the structure of ethical debates. It makes us rethink the concept of discrimination and scrutinize its cases in the field of assisted reproductive procedures. It revolutionizes the concept of medical treatment. It may increase or reduce inequalities based on health conditions. It may lead to numerous new rights in the field of genetics. Good genome editing practice can only be achieved through the close cooperation between the natural and social sciences. The present paper will endeavor to examine this new form of dialogue.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"volume\":\"29 3-5\",\"pages\":\"341-358\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10081\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

随着基因组编辑技术的可能性,我们已经进入了一个改造人类甚至改变我们遗传遗产的新阶段。基因组编辑在许多领域构成了新的责任。科学和社会从来没有像今天这样相互依赖。我们还必须从过去的优生学事件中吸取教训,我们需要调查由于无情的科学竞争、逐利的商业利益或个人自尊而经常发生的欺诈行为和科学研究失败的案例。基因组编辑提出了许多法律问题,例如:是否有可能对特定版本的基因编辑进行法律区分?谁来决定什么是疾病,什么是异常,什么是状况,什么是变异?哪些疾病值得纠正或治疗,哪些不值得?当基因编辑被广泛使用时,它会带来什么样的社会影响?在基因治疗的案例中,已经有了一些规范的区别:将体细胞干预与种系干预分开。但是,这种区别还没有根据最近的编辑实践进行分析。基因组编辑还重新调整了伦理辩论的结构。它使我们重新思考歧视的概念,并仔细审查其在辅助生殖程序领域的案例。它彻底改变了医疗的概念。它可能增加或减少基于健康状况的不平等。它可能会在遗传学领域带来许多新的权利。良好的基因组编辑实践只能通过自然科学和社会科学的密切合作来实现。本文将努力研究这种新的对话形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Genome Editing: Learning from Its Past and Envisioning Its Future.

With the technical possibility of genome editing, we have reached a new phase of transforming human beings and even altering our genetic legacy. Genome editing constitutes new responsibilities in many fields. Science and society have never been as dependent on each other as they are today. We must also learn from the past episodes of eugenics and we need to investigate fraudulent practices and cases of failure in scientific research that have often occurred due to merciless scientific competition, profit-seeking commercial interests, or individual pride. Genome editing raises numerous legal questions, such as: Would it be possible to make a legal difference between specific versions of gene editing? Who decides on what is considered a disease or an anomaly, a condition, or a variation? Which diseases are worth being corrected or treated and which ones are not? What kinds of social implications will gene editing bring about when it becomes widely available? Some normative distinctions have already been made in the case of gene therapy: separating somatic from germline interventions. But this distinction has not yet been analyzed in the light of the most recent editing practices. Genome editing also realigns the structure of ethical debates. It makes us rethink the concept of discrimination and scrutinize its cases in the field of assisted reproductive procedures. It revolutionizes the concept of medical treatment. It may increase or reduce inequalities based on health conditions. It may lead to numerous new rights in the field of genetics. Good genome editing practice can only be achieved through the close cooperation between the natural and social sciences. The present paper will endeavor to examine this new form of dialogue.

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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Jewish Studies (EJJS) is the Journal of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS). Its main purpose is to publish high-quality research articles, essays and shorter contributions on all aspects of Jewish Studies. Submissions are all double blind peer-reviewed. Additionally, EJJS seeks to inform its readers on current developments in Jewish Studies: it carries comprehensive review-essays on specific topics, trends and debated questions, as well as regular book-reviews. A further section carries reports on conferences, symposia, and descriptions of research projects in every area of Jewish Studies.
期刊最新文献
An Assessment on Innovator's Ability for Consent-Free Health Data Reuse, In the Context of the GDPR and EHDS: The Netherlands Case Study. European Court of Justice. An Exploratory Study of Capacity Assessment in Medical Practice in Ireland. Selected Legislature and Jurisprudence. Selected Legislation and Jurisprudence.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1