Skip to main content

Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman

Abstract

Is the germline gene editing (GEE) of embryos with disabling conditions a moral obligation? According to a recent editorial by F. Broadmann, there are strong reasons to hold the opposite, since “such a focus on the benefit to individual embryos is to overlook the broader societal changes that genome editing will signal, as well as the potential negative impacts on existing persons with genetic conditions”. This paper is aimed at rebuking these arguments by invoking the human dignity principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Barter B, Hastings RP, Williams R, Huws JV (2017) Perceptions and discourses relating to genetic testing: interviews with people with down syndrome. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 30(2):395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman F (2019) Human genome editing and the identity politics of genetic disability. J Community Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-019-00437-4

  • Boardman FK, Hale R (2018) How do genetically disabled adults view selective reproduction? Impairment, identity, and genetic screening. Mol Genet Genomic Med 6:941–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (1996) Choosing who will be disabled: genetic intervention and the morality of inclusion. Soc Philos Policy 13:18–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coller BS (2019) Ethics of human genome editing. Annu Rev Med 70:289–305

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Miguel Beriain I (2018) Human dignity and gene editing: using human dignity as an argument against modifying the human genome and germline is a logical fallacy. EMBO Rep e46789

  • Parens E, Asch A (2003) Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 9:40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranisch R (2019) Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: is there a case in favour of germline interventions? Bioethics 00:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raposo VL (2019) Gene editing, the mystic threat to human dignity. J Bioeth Inq 16(2):249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J (2002) Deaf lesbians, “designer disability,” and the future of medicine. BMJ 325:771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J, Singer P (2019) An ethical pathway for gene editing. Bioethics 32(2):221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J, Pugh J, Douglas Tm Gyngell C (2015) The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein Cell 6(7):476–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soniewicka M (2015) Disability and the ethics of selective reproduciton. Bioethics 29:557–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taneja P, Pandya A, Foley D, Nicely V, Arnos KS (2004) Attitudes of deaf individuals towards genetic testing. Am J Med Genet 130A:17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editinghuman-reproduction. Accessed 13 March 2020

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Government of the Basque Country, Grant IT-1066-16 and the EU Commission, H2020 SWAFS Programme, PANELFIT Project, research grant number 788039.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iñigo de Miguel Beriain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Miguel Beriain, I. Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman. J Community Genet 11, 241–243 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00460-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-020-00460-w