Advertisement

How Bioethics Can Inform Policy Decisions About Genetic Enhancement

  • Robert Cook-Deegan
  • Kathleen N. Lohr
  • Julie Gage Palmer
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 98)

Among its many functions, bioethics applies philosophy, law, history, social sciences, humanities, and religion to normative analyses of new biotechnologies. We show how explicit moral analysis, religious perspectives, and contributions from the humanities informed public policy decisions about the beginning of human DNA transfer experiments; we also examine the value that bioethics added to the policymaking process. We then turn to an emerging genetic technology that appears thorny through the bioethics lens: genetic memory enhancement. We describe current and potential contributions of bioethics to public policy in this arena. Finally, we contemplate how bioethics might contribute to similar policy-making for enhancement technologies in the future. We conclude that genetic interventions such as inserting or altering DNA to enhance memory or cognition—whether inherited or affecting only the person whose cells are genetically altered—will likely be introduced from the edges of medicine, and we call for broad bioethics conversations regarding genetic changes in memory and cognition.

The previous chapter in this volume (“Religious Traditions and Genetic Enhancement”; Chapter 3) addresses genetic intervention, focusing particularly on its links to eugenics, and religious and moral perspectives on its acceptability. That chapter is a review of normative analyses, and we do not plow that ground again here. Instead we focus on how normative analysis informs policy, and we specifically examine the roles bioethics and religion have played—or failed to play—in making policy decisions about genetic intervention.

Keywords

Mild Cognitive Impairment Genetic Intervention Genetic Enhancement Human Gene Therapy Gene Therapy Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (2004). National Healthcare Disparities Report: Summary. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr03/nhdrsum03.htm (accessed for this purpose 4 September 2005).
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (2005a). National Healthcare Disparities Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr05/nhdr05.htm (accessed 12 February 2007).
  3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (2005b). National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Available at: http://www.guideline.gov/search/searchresults.aspx?Type = 3andtxtSearch = alzheimer%27s + diseaseandnum = 20 (accessed 4 September 2005).
  4. Allen, David B., and Norman C. Fost (1990). “Growth Hormone for Short Stature: Panacea or Pandora’s box?” Journal of Pediatrics 117, 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avery, Oswald T., Colin M. McCleod, and Maclyn McCarty (1944). “Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types”, Journal of Experimental Medicine 79, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, Paul, and Maxine Singer (1995). “The Recombinant DNA Controversy 20 Years Later”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 92, 9011–9013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, Allen, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chatterjee, Anjan (2004). “Cosmetic Neurology: The Controversy over Enhancing Movement, Mentation and Mood”, Neurology 63, 968–974.Google Scholar
  9. Chapman, Audrey R., and Mark S. Frankel (eds.) (2003). Designing our Descendants: Promises and Perils of Genetic Modification. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, Stanley N., Annie C.Y. Chang, Herbert W. Boyer, and Robert B. Helling (1973). “Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids In Vitro”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 70(November), 3240–3244.Google Scholar
  11. Consumer Reports (2006). Evaluating Prescription Drugs Used to Treat: Alzheimer’s Disease—Comparing Effectiveness, Safety and Price. Consumer Report Best Buy Drugs, www.crbestbuydrugs.org/PDFs/costupdates/AlzfheimersDrugs-CostUpdate-Nov2006.pdf (accessed 12 February 2007).
  12. Daniels, Norman (1985). Just Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Daniels, Norman (1992). “Growth Hormone Therapy for Short Stature: Can We Support the Treatment/Enhancement Distinction?” Growth: Genetics and Hormones 8(Supplement 1), 46–48.Google Scholar
  14. Daniels, Norman (1996). Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Daniels, Norman, and James Sabin (1998). “The Ethics of Accountability in Managed Care”, Health Affairs 17(5), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dees, Robert H. (2004). “Slippery Slopes, Wonder Drugs and Cosmetic Neurology”, Neurology 63, 951–952.Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, Carl, and Peter Kramer (2003). Better than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara Sahakian, and Paul Root Wolpe (2004). “Neurocognitive Enhancement: What Can We Do and What Should We Do?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(May), 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2000). “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, New Initiatives to Protect Participants in Gene Therapy Trials”. Press Release of 7 March 2000. Available at http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/gene_therapy_20000307.htm (accessed 23 September 2007).
  20. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2001). “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Availability for Public Disclosure and Submission to FDA for Public Disclosure of Certain Data and Information Related to Human Gene Therapy or Xenotransplantation”, Federal Register 66(12): 4688–4706. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cber/rules/frgene011801.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  21. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2002). “Gene Therapy Patient Tracking System, Final Document”. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/gttrack.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  22. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2003). “FDA Advisory Committee Discusses Steps for Potentially Continuing Certain Gene Therapy Trials That Were Recently Placed on Hold”, FDA Talk Paper T03–16, 28 February 2003. Available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01202.html (accessed 23 September 2007).
  23. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2004). “FDA Approved Labeling Text for NDA 20–717/S-005 andS-008 (Approved-23-JAN-2004)”, PROVIGIL (modafinil) Tablets (C-IV). Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2004/20717se1–008_provigil_lbl.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  24. Frankel, Mark S., and Audrey R. Chapman (eds.) (2000). Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications: Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious and Policy Issues. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  25. Fredrickson, Donald S. (2001). The Recombinant DNA Controversy: A Memoir, Science, Politics, and the Public Interest 1974–1981. Washington, DC: ASM (American Society for Microbiology).Google Scholar
  26. Gamov, George (1954). “Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein”, Nature 173, 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gartlehner, G., Hansen, R. A., Nissman, D., Lohr, H.N., and Carey, T. S. (2006). “A Simple and Valid Tool Distinguished Efficacy from Effectiveness Studies”. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(10), 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerlai, Robert. (2003). “Memory Enhancement: The Progress and Our Fears”, Genes, Brain, and Behavior 2, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwald, Leslie M. (2007). “Medicare Part D Data: Major Changes on the Horizon”, Medical Care (Supplement 2), S9–S12.Google Scholar
  30. Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1923). Daedalus, or Science and the Future, an essay read to the Society of Heretics, Cambridge, England, 4 February 1923; reprinted in Krishna R. Dronamraju (ed.), Haldane’s Daedalus Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 23–51. Also available online at http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~ crshalizi/Daedalus.html (accessed 19 September 2007).
  31. Hansen, Richard A., Gerald Gartlehner, Daniel Kaufer, Kathleen Lohr, and Timothy Carey (2006). “Drug Class Review of Alzheimer’s Drugs”. Final Report Update 1. Portland, OR: Oregon Health and Science University 2006. Available at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/reports/documents/Alzheimer%20Final%20Report%20Update%201.pdf. Accessed for this purpose 12 February 2007.
  32. Hauser, Stephen (2004). “The Shape of Things to Come”, Neurology 63, 948–950.Google Scholar
  33. House of Representatives, U.S. Congress (1982). Hearings on Human Genetic Engineering Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, Committee Report No. 170. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  34. Hyman, Steven E. (2006). “Improving our Brains”. BioSocieties 1, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juengst, Eric, Robert Binstock, Maxwell Mehlman, Stephen Post, and Peter Whitehouse (2003). “Biogerontology, ‘Anti-aging Medicine’ and the Challenges of Human Enhancement”, The Hastings Center Report 33(4), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Juengst, Eric, and Erik Parens (2003). “Germ-line Dancing: Definitional Considerations for Policymakers”, in A. Chapman and M. Frankel (eds.), Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 20–39.Google Scholar
  37. Juengst, Eric (1997). “Can Enhancement Be Distinguished from Prevention in Genetic Medicine?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22, 125–142.Google Scholar
  38. Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  39. Krimsky, Sheldon (1982). Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Lederberg, Joshua (1994). “The Transformation of Genetics by DNA: An Anniversary Celebration of Avery, MacLeod and Mccarty (1944)”, Genetics 136 (February), 423–426.Google Scholar
  41. Lohr, Kathleen N. (ed.) (1990). Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance. Volume I. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lyon, Jeff, and Peter Gorner (1995). Altered Fates: Gene Therapy and the Retooling of Human Life. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  43. Millman, Michael (ed.) (1993). Access to Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Müller, Ulrich, Nikolai Steffenhagen, Ralf Regenthal, and Peter Bublak (2004). “Effects of Modafinil on Working Memory Processes in Humans”, Psychopharmacology 177, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neergard, Lauran (AP) (2005). “Alzheimer’s Gene Therapy Success”, as reported on CBS Newswatch, 25 April.Google Scholar
  46. O’Connor, Anahad (2004). “Wakefulness Finds a Powerful Ally”, The New York Times, 29 June.Google Scholar
  47. Office of Biotechnology Activities (OBA) (2001). National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Recombinant DNA Research: Actions Under the NIH Guidelines, Federal Register 66(223) (19 November 2001), 57970–57977. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/frproactions/11–01pro.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  48. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1984a). Commercial Biotechnology: An International Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-BA-218. Available at http://www.princeton.edu/?ota/disk3/1984/8407/840701.PDF (accessed 23 September 2007).
  49. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1984b). Human Gene Therapy—A Background Paper. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-BP-BA-32.Google Scholar
  50. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1990). Confused Minds, Burdened Families: Finding Help for People with Alzheimer’s and Other Dementias. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-13A–403, July 1990.Google Scholar
  51. Parens, Erik (1998). Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Parens, Erik, and Lori P. Knowles (2003). Reprogenetics and Public Policy: Reflections and Recommendations. Special Supplement to the Hastings Center Report, July–August 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Philips, Helen (2004). “Alzheimer’s Gene Therapy Trials Shows Early Promise”, NewScientist.com News Service, 28 April.Google Scholar
  54. Points to Consider in the Design and Submission of Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA Molecules into One or More Human Research Participants (Points To Consider), Appendix M of the Recombinant DNA Guidelines, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health. Available online at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines_02/Appendix_M.htm (accessed 23 September 2007).
  55. Powers, Madison, and Ruth Faden (2006). Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (President’s Commission) (1982). Splicing Life: A Report on the Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings. Washington, DC: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Available online at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/splicinglife.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  57. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (President’s Commission) (1983). Securing Access to Health Care: A Report on the Ethical Implications of Differences in the Availability of Health Services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/securing_access.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  58. President’s Council on Bioethics (2003). Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/ (accessed 23 November 2007).
  59. Rainsbury, Joseph M. (2000). “Biotechnology on the RAC-FDA/NIH Regulation of Human Gene Therapy”, Food and Drug Law Journal 55(4), 575–600.Google Scholar
  60. Randall, Delia C., Nicola L. Fleck, John M. Shneerson, and Sandra E. File (2004). “The Cognitive-enhancing Properties of Modafinil are Limited in Non-sleep-deprived Middle-aged Volunteers”, Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 77, 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) (2005a). Charter of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, modification of charter approved 13 April 2005. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/RACCharter2005.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  62. Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), National Institutes of Health (2005b). Conclusions and Recommendations of the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Gene Transfer Safety Symposium: Current Perspectives on Gene Transfer for X-SCID, March 15, 2005. Available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/SSMar05/pdf/X-SCID_RAC_rcmdtns_06_2005.pdf (accessed 23 September 2007).
  63. Rose, Steven P.R. (2002). “‘Smart Drugs:’ Do They Work? Are they Ethical? Will They be Legal?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3(December), 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sauer, Brian D., Judy A. Shinogle, Wu Xu, Matthew Samore, Jonathan Nebeker, Zhiwei Liu, Randall Rupper, Linda Lux, Jacqueline Amozegar, and Kathleen N. Lohr (2007). Improving Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance: Methods using Observational Data and Cohort Studies. Final Report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
  65. Sen, Amartja (2000). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  66. Sun, Marjorie (1981). “Cline Loses Two NIH Grants”, Science, 214 (December 11), 1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thompson, Larry (1994). Correcting the Code: Inventing the Genetic Cure for the Human Body. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  68. Trifonov, Edward N. (2000). “Earliest Pages of Bioinformatics”, Bioinformatics 16, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turner, Danielle C., Trevor W. Robbins, Luke Clark, Adam R. Aron, Jonathan Dowson, and Barbara J. Sahakian (2003). “Cognitive Enhancing Effects of Modafinil in Healthy Volunteers”, Psychopharmacology 165, 260–269.Google Scholar
  70. U.S. House of Representatives (1982). Genetic Engineering. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, November 16–18.Google Scholar
  71. Walters, LeRoy, and Julie Gage Palmer (1997). The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Walz, Chris (2003). “Air Force Testing New Fatigue-Combating Drug”, Pentagram 14.Google Scholar
  73. Watson, James D., and Francis H.C. Crick (1953a). “A Structure for Deoxyribonucleic Acid”, Nature 171(April 25), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Watson, James D., and Francis H.C. Crick (1953b). “Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid”, Nature 171(May 30), 964–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woodring, Tech Sgt. J.C. (2004). “Air Force Scientists Battle Aviator Fatigue”, Air Force Link 30(April).Google Scholar
  76. Woo, Savio (2000). “The Last Word: Researchers React to Gene Therapy’s Pitfalls and Promises”, FDA Consumer (September–October). Available at http://www.fda.gov/fdac/departs/2000/500_word.html (accessed 23 September 2007).

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Cook-Deegan
    • 1
  • Kathleen N. Lohr
    • 2
  • Julie Gage Palmer
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, Institute for Genome Sciences & PolicyDuke UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Social and Statistical SciencesRTI InternationalResearch Triangle Park
  3. 3.University of Chicago School of LawUSA

Personalised recommendations