Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CRISPR-Cas and the Wicked Problem of Moral Responsibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility

Part of the book series: Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie ((TPAHT,volume 1))

  • 444 Accesses

Abstract

The emergence of CRISPR-Cas genome editing has raised severe ethical concerns. It has been suggested that CRISPR-Cas leads to a game-changing shift in biotechnology and, in turn, in ethical perspectives on the issue. However, it is less apparent what this shift might be about and how the advent of CRISPR-Cas changes ethical debates on genome editing and moral responsibility. Against this background, this paper analyzes the advent of the CRISPR-Cas technology from a perspective of moral philosophy, focusing on the features of the technology and a particular concept of moral responsibility that is usually employed in bioethics. Individual imputability of intentional actions and their foreseeable results in case of harm is at the core of this concept. It is argued that the decisive difference of CRISPR-Cas, compared to other approaches, is its easy accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness, attracting a broad range of new user groups while on the other hand moral assessment is gaining increasing complexity. This exerts pressure on the traditional concept of individual retrospective as well as prospective moral responsibility and requires a shift in moral perspective. It is argued that this gives reason to think of moral responsibility in broader terms including more systematic accounts of forward-looking or prospective responsibility which exceed the individual level. Finally, an agenda for such an account is laid out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., et al. (2015). Biotechnology A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230), 36–38. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrangou, R., & Doudna, J. A. (2016). Applications of CRISPR technologies in research and beyond. Nature Biotechnology, 34, 933 EP. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, M. (2016). CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing—new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology. NanoEthics, 10(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0259-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camporesi, S., & Cavaliere, G. (2016). Emerging ethical perspectives in the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats genome-editing debate. Personalized Medicine, 13(6), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2016-0047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A. L., Parent, B., Shen, M., & Plunkett, C. (2015). No time to waste–the ethical challenges created by CRISPR: Crispr/cas, being an efficient, simple, and cheap technology to edit the genome of any organism, raises many ethical and regulatory issues beyond the use to manipulate human germ line cells. EMBO Reports, 16(11), 1421–1426. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, D. (2017). Genome editing: Past, present, and future. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 90(4), 653–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charo, R. A., & Greely, H. T. (2015). Crispr critters and CRISPR cracks. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 15(12), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1104138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., Wang, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, H., & Gao, C. (2019). Crispr/cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 70, 667–697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-100049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. B. T., Platt, R. J., & Zhang, F. (2015). Therapeutic genome editing: Prospects and challenges. Nature Medicine, 21(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfant, A. (2012). Tweaking genes in your garage: Biohacking betwenn activism and entrenpreneurship. In T. H. W. Sützl (Ed.), Activist media and biopolitics (pp. 163–178). Innsbruck s.l.: innsbruck university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiCarlo, J. E., Chavez, A., Dietz, S. L., Esvelt, K. M., & Church, George M. (2015). Safeguarding CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives in yeast. Nature Biotechnology, 33(12), 1250–1255. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014). Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346(6213), 1258096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, J. (Ed.). (2015). Schriftenreihe zur wissenschaftsbasierten Politikberatung. Chancen und Grenzen des genome editing: The opportunities and limits of genome editing (1. Aufl.). Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Halle (Saale).

    Google Scholar 

  • Furrow, B. R. (2017). The CRISPR-Cas9 tool of gene editing: Cheaper, faster, riskier. Annals of Health Law, 26. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/anohl26&i=139.

  • Gantz, V. M., Jasinskiene, N., Tatarenkova, O., Fazekas, A., Macias, V. M., Bier, E., et al. (2015). Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(49), E6736-43. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521077112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R. M., & Musunuru, K. (2014). Expanding the genetic editing tool kit: Zfns, TALENs, and CRISPR-Cas9. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 124(10), 4154–4161. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI72992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, A., Galizi, R., Kyrou, K., Simoni, A., Siniscalchi, C., Katsanos, D., et al. (2015). A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature biotechnology, 34, 78 EP. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidbrink, L. (2017). Definitionen und Voraussetzungen der Verantwortung. In L. Heidbrink, C. Langbehn, & J. Loh (Eds.), Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften Handbuch Verantwortung (pp. 3–34). Wiesbaden s.l.: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. D., Lander, E. S., & Zhang, F. (2014). Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 157(6), 1262–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (Paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karberg, S. (2018). Spotlight 3 Gentechnologie für alle. In J. Diekämper, H. Fangerau, B. Fehse, J. Hampel, F. Hucho, K. Köchy, & M. Zenke (Eds.), Vierter Gentechnologiebericht: Bilanzierung einer Hochtechnologie (1st ed., pp. 271–276). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293790-270.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J., & van den Belt, H. (2016). Diy-Bio-economic, epistemological and ethical implications and ambivalences. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0039-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollek, R. (2013). Gentechnik. In A. Grunwald (Ed.), Handbuch Technikethik (pp. 279–287). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler’sche.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzerath, D. (2018). Ethische Kriterien und Argumente im Wandel der Zeit. In J. Diekämper, H. Fangerau, B. Fehse, J. Hampel, F. Hucho, K. Köchy, & M. Zenke (Eds.), Vierter Gentechnologiebericht: Bilanzierung einer Hochtechnologie (1st ed., pp. 103–128). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293790-102.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudian-sani, M.-R., Farnoosh, G., Mahdavinezhad, A., & Saidijam, M. (2017). CRISPR genome editing and its medical applications. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, 32(2), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2017.1406823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Normile, D. (2018). Shock greets claim of CRISPR-edited babies. Science, 362(6418), 978–979. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6418.978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genetic editing: An ethical review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostheimer, J., & Vogt, M. (2008). Risikomündigkeit—Rationale Strategien im Umgang mit Komplexität. In M. Zichy & H. Grimm (Eds.), Praxis in der Ethik (pp. 185–219). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauen, V. (2017). Ethische Verantwortung. In L. Heidbrink, C. Langbehn, & J. Loh (Eds.), Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften Handbuch Verantwortung (pp. 545–558). Wiesbaden s.l.: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander, J. D., & Joung, J. K. (2014). Crispr-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nature Biotechnology, 32(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfried, G., Pei, L., & Schmidt, M. (2014). European do-it-yourself (DIY) biology: Beyond the hope, hype and horror. BioEssays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, 36(6), 548–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201300149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waag technology and society. (2018). Tegenlicht visits BioHack Academy. Retrieved from https://waag.org/en/article/tegenlicht-visits-biohack-academy.

  • Wang, H., Yang, H., Shivalila, C. S., Dawlaty, M. M., Cheng, A. W., Zhang, F., et al. (2013). One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell, 153(4), 910–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelms, G. (2017). Systemverantwortung. In L. Heidbrink, C. Langbehn, & J. Loh (Eds.), Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften Handbuch Verantwortung (pp. 501–524). Wiesbaden s.l.: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Medizinische Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Joschka Haltaufderheide

Authors
  1. Joschka Haltaufderheide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joschka Haltaufderheide .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Literatur-, Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Birgit Beck

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Michael Kühler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Haltaufderheide, J. (2020). CRISPR-Cas and the Wicked Problem of Moral Responsibility. In: Beck, B., Kühler, M. (eds) Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie , vol 1. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04895-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04896-7

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation