Should we change the human genome? The most general arguments against changing the human genome are here in focus. Distinctions are made between positive and negative gene therapy, between germ-line and somatic therapy, and between therapy where the intention is to benefit a particular individual (a future child) and where the intention is to benefit the human gene-pool.
Some standard arguments against gene-therapy are dismissed. Negative somatic therapy is not controversial. Even negative, germ-line therapy is endorsed, if the intention is to cure a certain individual (a future child). In rare cases, positive therapy on somatic cells may be warranted. Germ-line therapy may become a valuable method of preventing harm, through ‘genetic vaccination’. If safe methods evolve, it is harmless (though vain), to try to achieve more ambitious goals. Prospective parents should not be prevented from exercising this harmless kind of parental authority.
The paper concludes: Thereis a moral limit to how much we ought to manipulate the human genome, however. We ought not to jeopardize the continued existence of mankind. We ought not to develop methods of germ-line therapy intended in a radical manner to improve human nature, and we ought to leave to prospective parents to decide in individual cases what kind of intervention shall take place.
Key wordseugenics gene therapy germ-line human genetic engineering human nature negative gene-therapy positive gene therapy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Juengst ET, ed. Human germ-line engineering.J Med Philos 1991;16:587–694.Google Scholar
- 2.Walters L. Ethical issues in human gene therapy.J Clin Ethics 1991;2:267–73.Google Scholar
- 3.Howell JD. The history of eugenics and the future of gene therapy.J Clin Ethics 1991;2:274–7.Google Scholar
- 4.Juengst ET, ed. Patterns of reasoning in medical genetics.Theor Med 1989;10:101–65.Google Scholar
- 5.Boone CK. Bad axioms in genetic engineering.Hastings Center Report 1988;18 (Special Suppl, Aug/Sept):9–13.Google Scholar
- 6.Anderson WF. Genetics and human malleability.Hastings Center Report 1990;20 (Jan/Feb):21–3.Google Scholar
- 7.Glover J.What Sort of People Should There Be? Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1984.Google Scholar
- 8.Anderson WF. Human gene therapy: scientific and ethical considerations.J Med Philos 1985;10:275–92.Google Scholar
- 9.Anderson WF. Human gene therapy: why draw a line?J Med Phil 1989;14:681–93.Google Scholar
- 10.Wulff HR, Pedersen SA, Rosenberg R.Philosophy of Medicine: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.Google Scholar
- 11.Mauron A, and Thévox J-M. Germ-line engineering: a few european voices.J Med Philos 1991;16:649–66.Google Scholar
- 12.Jonas H.Technik, Medizin und Ethik: Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Frankfurt: Insel Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
- 13.Zimmerman BK. The case for its development and use.J Med Philos 1991;16:593–612.Google Scholar
- 14.Zohar NJ. Prospects for ‘genetic therapy’ — can a person benefit from being altered?Bioethics 1991;5:275–88.Google Scholar
- 15.Tännsjö T. ‘Who are the beneficiaries?’Bioethics 1992;6:288–96.Google Scholar
- 16.Nolan K. How do we think about the ethics of human germ-line genetic therapy?J Med Philos 1991;16:613–20.Google Scholar
- 17.Williams B. Which slopes are slippery? In: Lockwood M. ed.Moral Dilemmas in Modern Nedicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986:126–37.Google Scholar
- 18.President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research:Splicing Life. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
- 19.Boone CK. Bad axioms in genetic engineering.Hastings Center Report 1988;18:9–13.Google Scholar
- 20.Nozick R.Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.Google Scholar
- 21.Wilson, EO.On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
- 22.Sprigge TLS. Some recent positions in environmental ethics examined.Inquiry 1991;34:107–28.Google Scholar
- 23.Naess A.Ökologi, Samfunn og Livsstil. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1976.Google Scholar
- 24.Naess A. The shallow and the deep. Long-range ecological movement. A summary,Inquiry 1973;16:95–100.Google Scholar
- 25.Jonas H.The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.Google Scholar
- 26.Tännsjö T.Conservatism for Our Time. London: Routledge, 1990.Google Scholar