The Ethical Status of Germline Gene Editing in Future Space Missions: The Special Case of Positive Selection on Earth for Future Space Missions

There are good theoretical rationales for considering germline gene editing (GGE) as a recommended and perhaps even necessary procedure for future long-term human space missions. This paper examines the arguments for applying GGE in a hypothetical future scenario where future parents living on Earth make decisions about applying GGE to their future children with the goal of allowing them to participate in space missions. The paper presents an ethical rationale for GGE. The paper also recognizes an area of potential moral controversy that is not so much related to the application of GGE itself, but to the risk of different perceptions of well-being by parents and children that may result in the need for genetically modified children to leave Earth against their will.


Introduction
Can we imagine a future where germline gene editing (GGE) becomes a procedure routinely used in space missions?Given today's moral controversy over GGE, the assumption that GGE might ever become standard procedure sounds less likely than the reality of long-term space missions such as colonizing Mars or another astronomical object.In this paper, I consider the rationale for applying GGE for future space missions, as well as its ethical status.
This paper discusses the topic rarely discussed in the literature on the philosophy and ethics of space missions -the moral status of modifying future children on Earth for their participation in space missions.Thus, it adds to the growing literature in the philosophy, ethics, and bioethics of space mission exploration on the issue of human reproduction in space.Continuing with the problems discussed in [28], the paper points to a not-to-be-missed possible problem in future space exploration, when future parents will be faced with deciding whether to apply GGE to their future children, thereby determining their future for life in space.

The Future in Space
In the paper, I assume that humanity will continue to expand into space.This expansion is not necessarily a process that can be predicted and planned today.On the contrary, it can be assumed that both technical capabilities and the political and social climate may suggest otherwise.What is already underway is the scientific and commercial exploration of space.
This paper is part of the tradition of considerations in the philosophy and ethics of space exploration, which assumes that the future of humanity will include increasingly intensive exploration and exploitation of space, which may culminate in the creation of a long-term or permanent habitat in space.The authors list a number of reasons why such a development of events is possible, taking into account environmental reasons, military reasons, political reasons or, finally, the idea of saving the human species in the long term [22,27,29].
I do not prejudge what the goals of long-term space missions, including space settlement, might be.Certainly, the motivation must be strong enough, given the technical and logistical difficulties, and medical challenges of such missions.Space settlement may be necessary for the survival of the human species.But it is also possible if life on Earth continues to be possible but offers a relatively poor quality of life.Life in space may be seen as either a necessity (when the continued existence of humans on Earth will be threatened) or an attractive possibility (as a place to live, work).This is only an assumption about the future, as it cannot be ruled out that the advanced program of space exploration and exploitation will be carried out exclusively by automated means, without human involvement [5], or that human rescue in the case of a hypothetical apocalyptic scenario will be accomplished by means of so-called embryo space colonization [11].

GGE for Long-Term Space Missions
GGE clinical applications are currently prohibited.Moratoria prohibiting GGE consider the hypothetical possibility of its application only in special situations, for therapeutic (preventive) purposes, when alternative means are not available or are insufficient.This present context shows that GGE requires special justification.GGE includes editing of gametes, zygotes, and embryos.One of the methods used in GGE, for both viable and nonviable human embryos, is CRISPR-Cas9 [17].Ongoing studies have targeted diseases such as beta-thalassemia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and Marfan Syndrome, the latter applied to viable embryos with a repair rate of 89% and no off-target effects [7].
GGE is considered a simpler procedure than somatic gene editing (SGE).This is mainly due to the fact that with GGE we can easily modify the targeted genes from the beginning as a whole, since the targeted genes are located in each cell, whereas with SGE we have to target a particular gene in a particular place to make it active in the right place and in the right way ( [26], p. 39).The advantage of GGE over SGE is the greater efficiency of GGE ( [19], p. 298).GGE can involve both sperm and ova as well as the early embryo.In all cases, the genetic changes will pass on to future generations.These generations, however, will live under different environmental conditions in which the changes applied in one generation will not necessarily be compatible with those of subsequent generations born with the same modified trait ( [19], p. 289).
The first genome editing conducted on non-viable embryos in China in 2015 and 2016 resulted in failure.Only 4 out of 71 embryos achieved the intended HBB gene modification, while off-target effects, i.e., modification of genes other than the intended ones, were reported in many cases.The same was true for the 2016 study, when of 26 embryos undergoing CCR5 gene editing, only 4 completed the intended editing.In contrast, a 2017 study on viable embryos, also in China, was quite successful in treating disease-causing mutations.Nonetheless, the problem with applying CRISPR-Cas to GGE remains both the risk of unwanted changes to the target gene and the risk of off-targets ( [16], p. 478).The medical risks are high, especially for long-term effects that may manifest in the modified individual and even in their offspring [30].
The main ethical challenge associated with GGE lies in the fact that genetic changes applied to germline are inherited on to subsequent generations.This fact of being able to influence future generations will introduce a new rank of ethical issues from which somatic modification is free.This is because GGE introduces the risk that one unfortunate modification will have an impact on an evolutionary scale, where it will be inherited in a cascading fashion by all descendants and descendants of descendants [23].
However, if it turned out that these changes could be reversible ( [1], p. 65), we might wonder whether Page 3 of 10 3 Vol.: (0123456789) we should rightly consider the fact of its heritability as the essence of the moral controversy of GGE.Bryan Cwik suggests not to evaluate all germline modifications equally but to separate them depending on the analysis of such key factors as target, goal, outcome, and mechanics.He also distinguishes between modification due to revision, correction, and transferring genes [9].Opposition to germline modification is strong even if it were to prevent disease.Those opposed to such modifications point primarily to the criterion of safety and the risk of complications, but they also mention the need to consider the future interest of children born this way [31].
The issue of procedure safety is not trivial from an ethical perspective.For it is not enough to say with respect to GGE that simply affirming its safety is enough.The problem is how to achieve this in practice.Achieving complete safety will require many years of research and waiting to see if any adverse effects occur over the life of the embryo subjected to the modification. 1But negative effects can occur in the offspring even if they do not occur in the modified individual.This fact makes GGE likely to be the domain of the further future, because the primary challenge will be to apply GGE to a viable embryo, which could then undergo lifelong follow-up.
It is also difficult to force an individual to procreate in a situation in which they do not wish to reproduce -and perhaps will never wish to reproduce for fear of a possible negative impact on their offspring as a result of being subjected to GGE without their knowledge and consent.In this specific sense, I believe that the informed consent criterion plays a role, although for obvious reasons it can never be applied to an embryo.Nevertheless, this is at least a situation in which I believe that the application of GGE may be forbidden -because of the potential risk of bringing about negative effects not on the embryo that is being modified, but on the potential future offspring of the now modified embryo.This is because a person can do everything in her power to eliminate the risk of complications for her future offspring beyond those brought upon her by GGE.
In this paper, I do not consider the status of GGE per se, but its special application in one hypothetical scenario of future space exploration.The resulting conclusions do not resolve the ethical status of GGE per se.
GGE can only be done in the context of human reproduction.Thus, considering GGE in space assumes human reproduction under the conditions of future space missions, such as a permanent habitat in space [2].But the special context of GGE application for space missions may also be human reproduction on Earth with a view to enabling or facilitating future children born on Earth to participate in space missions.In this paper, I consider only the latter case.

GGE on Earth
A scenario in which GGE can be applied on Earth with a view to the participation of future children -either as children or solely as adults -in space missions implies that long-term space missions and perhaps space settlement will be seen as an attractive option.In this scenario, humanity's continued existence on Earth would be possible, but could be characterized by a low quality of life due to overpopulation and climate change.Thus, the concept of GGE applied to future long-duration space missions discussed in the paper does not prejudge the idea that life on Earth must be unbearable and necessarily unattractive.The idea behind this thought experiment is that a GGE, either necessary or at least recommended for participation in such missions, expands the range of possibilities compared to those who will not undergo a GGE.
The thought experiment discussed in this paper assumes the following conditions: (a) humanity will pursue an advanced program of space exploration and exploitation in the future requiring long-term stays in far space, (b) participation in such missions will be attractive either for financial reasons or because of living conditions (catastrophic scenario on Earth), (c) the best available countermeasures for space radiation and altered gravity to which participants in such missions will be exposed will be the application of GGE, (d) GGE can only be applied on Earth and is not feasible in space, (e) lack of GGE may exclude an individual from participating in space missions (either formally exclude or actually prevent her participation due to lack of adaptation to the space environment) or at least hinder her ability to carry out space missions, (f) adaptations obtained as a result of the GGE for participation in future space missions may negatively affect the modified individual should she decide to remain on Earth, and (g) only prospective parents, not third parties, can make the decision to apply GGE for future space missions.
The future terrestrial environment and the environment of a hypothetical base or colony in space, such as Mars, are difficult to compare.The terrestrial environment will be crowded and polluted perhaps to the point that permanent shelter living will be required.This is analogous to the need for permanent shelter life on Mars.Mars may not necessarily be as crowded as Earth, but factors such as limited supplies and the need to supply them from Earth and/ or produce them on site may make the ratio of space base population to space offered, limited resources, and limited mobility such that space colony inhabitants may live in de facto conditions of relative overpopulation.
Mars also has constant factors that negatively affect the human body, such as exposure to cosmic radiation much higher than on Earth, as well as altered gravity.Earth is devoid of these factors.But it is hard to say whether their equivalent would be environmental pollution, especially in the event of a catastrophe.A possible nuclear war could cause long-term contamination.It is also possible that life in a space colony will guarantee a stability of civilization that life on Earth may be deprived of in the future.
Another scenario in which participation in longterm space missions might be seen as attractive is commercial exploitation of space.Perhaps jobs in sectors such as tourism and space mining will guarantee salaries that are very competitive compared to careers on Earth.
Let us also assume that pursuing these long-term space missions will require genetic modifications that are only possible at the embryonic stage.Assume that SGE is insufficient to produce traits that will guarantee the required resistance to cosmic radiation, offset the negative effects of altered gravity, but also perhaps enhance cognition and morality should conventional means prove insufficient.This example may be modified by adding the assumption that long-term space missions may require modifications for the sole purpose of enhancing performance, not just health. 2pplying GGE to future potential participants in such missions may be considered either mandatory or optional but recommended.
In this example, GGE is justified by special environmental factors.At least at first sight, there are no alternatives or sufficient alternatives.But the absence of alternatives to GGE is not necessarily a condition for allowing its application, as today's moratoria suggest.I assume that GGE can coexist with alternative methods and be applied because of cost, time, or other factors.Nor should the scope of applicability be limited to modifications directly related to health.Modification of cognitive and moral functions, if ever possible through GGE, could be acceptable.The rationale for cognitive and moral modifications is the ethic of quality of life and the principle of well-being.Well-functioning cognition, as well as morality that is appropriate to environmental conditions, such as empowering and facilitating collaboration, enhance quality of life.
If the application of GGE enhances well-being and quality of life by increasing resilience to the effects of harmful environmental factors, as well as increasing productivity -thus having a positive impact not only at the individual level, but also in a broader social and political perspective -the controversy with its application to space missions must be sought elsewhere.A controversial area is the effects on narrowing the life choices of the future modified child, but this is dependent on other conditions.If GGE results in changes that do not adversely affect the entire life of a future child who chooses to remain on Earth, the application of GGE is not a limitation of future possibilities, but an enhancement of them.This is because the future child modified at the embryonic stage acquires additional adaptations that her unmodified peer does not have.The application of GGE is controversial when, as a result of the modification, life on Earth will be made more difficult and the genetic modification will reduce the quality of life for the individual who chooses to remain on Earth.
Page 5 of 10 3 Vol.: (0123456789) A GGE applied in an individual's natural adaptive environment with an eye toward adapting to a new, harmful environment either offers no benefit in the host environment or, in the worst-case scenario, can have negative consequences.Hypothetical genetic modification of genes containing homeobox transcription factors and other major regulators of soft and hard tissue production and homeostasis for the purpose of increasing resistance to microgravity could have negative consequences for a person who remains in the Earth's gravitational environment.Genetically designing an individual to gradually increase the mass of these tissues, as well as muscle mass, could worsen the condition of her joints.This will lead to an increase in the density of the bones, which in turn may pose a problem for repairing them in the event of injury on Earth [13].
Another example is the long-term effects of large muscle mass in weightlifters, which have long-term consequences for joint structure and mobility.Also, engineering genes which may confer radio-resistance by accelerating DNA repair, which would confer an unnecessary phenotype for individuals on Earth, may be permissive to increasing mutation rate as a consequence of mis-repair due to stimulation of repair biochemistry.
When considering the possible negative consequences for a GGE subject who remains on Earth, it is worth referring to He Jiankui's research on gene editing in China with regard to the CCR5 receptor, which is the main receptor for HIV-1 entry into cells [14,21].This GGE led to unpredictable changes in the immune system [32].
The controversial and problematic nature of the bioethical situation at hand is related to the longterm balance of benefits and risks.One example is the aforementioned CCR5 and the immune system.In the case of astronauts, their immune systems may be systematically weakened as they will not be exposed to pathogens, which is necessary for the maintenance of the immune system and general immune surveillance.In this case, especially in contact with space radiation, an increase in cancer development is possible.
A genetically modified future child may not want to participate in space missions for various reasons.In contrast, her possession of a GGE may exert some pressure to avoid possible negative consequences associated with reduced adaptation to remain on Earth.The degree of moral justification depends on whether the quality of life on Earth will always be very low, or whether the quality of life in space is only marginally higher than the quality of life on Earth.Perhaps the quality of life on Earth will be higher than in space, but taking a job in space may offer incomparable financial benefits.
A morally challenging scenario is one in which the parents' decision to inflict GGE leads to irreversible consequences for the future child.This is not a strong indictment, as one can point to many examples of non-biomedical decisions made by parents that irreversibly shape children.Reversibility may be theoretically possible in at least some cases, but it may be very difficult to achieve.Examples of seemingly irreversible decisions made by parents include decisions to teach a child a particular language, to live in a particular country and place, to choose a school, a religion or no religion, and many other educational decisions, especially those related to learning.
But even if we agree with the statement that parents irreversibly influence certain characteristics of their children in a conventional way, it is not certain that this influence can be compared with the discussed case of GGE, the effect of which can be to make it difficult or even impossible for a future child to stay on Earth.It is difficult to find objective criteria which would allow us to compare the effects of raising a child in a given religion or teaching it a given language with a GGE which forces it to leave Earth and carry out a long-term or permanent space mission.We can only refer here to our intuitions, which may suggest that having to leave the planet is something probably incomparably worse than having to leave a city or country, or living in another city or country.
Ostensibly, then, but based solely on our intuitions and emotions, we might suppose that applying GGE in the context of future space missions under discussion is a morally worse act -but only because of the presumed irreversibility of GGE's effects -than all kinds of non-biomedical educational influence of parents on their children.However, this is a flawed way of reasoning.It is worth remembering that the parents' motivation for administering GGE is the welfare of their future child.Welfare is the resultant of objective and subjective states, as well as the resultant of current social and cultural relations.Since material well-being is often an element that increases the chances for a better quality of life, the possibility of living or working in space in discussed case is associated with an increase in material wellbeing.This is a relative factor, depending on the degree of prosperity on Earth.But in this example, I assume that space missions are widely perceived as attractive.
It is also worth mentioning that the human germline genome is constantly changing regardless of our targeted biomedical interventions.Both the invention of agriculture and medicine have changed and are changing the germline genome ( [12], pp.212-213).In this context, a GGE for space missions would be the kind of controlled changes that are happening anyway, and will probably happen to a population isolated in space, however over a sufficiently long period of time and with the right environmental conditions.Of course, exposure to intense selection pressure can lead to the extinction of any species that comes under this new pressure.On the other hand, the occurrence of any evolutionary changes over a long period of time cannot be ruled out.In any case, on the other hand, this fact of the occurrence of evolutionary change is a counter-argument of proponents of the gene editing concept to those opponents of genetic modification who consider the pursuit of genome modification to be unnatural.
It is also worth bearing in mind feminist objections that highlight the risks of social injustice, exploitation, and exclusion.Costly GGE will exclude the indigent, but it is difficult to see this as a type of exclusion qualitatively distinct from the non-biomedical exclusions that currently exist, which separate the very rich and their children from the rest of society and their children.Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a type of GGE that would lead to a uniquely genetically equipped child -it is not clear that this type of manipulation would be possible at all, beyond modifications of a therapeutic and preventive nature ( [12], p. 221).
In conclusion, I suggest that the only morally controversial element associated with applying GGE to future space missions under the circumstances discussed here is the creation of a situation in which a future child may be indirectly forced to leave Earth at least temporarily.However, I point out that such a situation is only potentially morally wrong.There are no objective criteria to confirm or exclude the analogy with conventional child-rearing methods, which also cause irreversible changes.

Parents' Rights Regarding Future Generations vs the Challenge of Irreversibility
I assume that only parents have the right to make the decision to apply GGE.I therefore rule out a plausibly dystopian scenario in which third parties can make this decision.I therefore believe that the future will not bring any environmental constraints that will force humanity to limit reproductive rights and procreative liberty.
According to reproductive freedom and autonomy, no one should prevent prospective parents from becoming parents, but neither should anyone force them to parent ( [25], p. 129).If we grant parents the unquestioned right to raise their children, which is, de facto, to influence and decide for them about their lives, the distinction between traditional means of upbringing and biotechnological measures disappears here.The usual argument raised in this context to demonstrate that biotechnological means nevertheless have a different ethical status, one that makes their use more controversial and, as such, requiring greater scrutiny and caution, is to draw attention to their irreversibility or lower degree of irreversibility than that of cultural and social means of education.
I believe that arguments against human enhancements that grow out of concern and risk jeopardizing a pattern of parenting, changing attitudes toward the child (from subject to object), and raising the irreversibility of biotechnological modifications are unwarranted for the following reasons.First, any attempt to limit parental rights would strike at the concept of parental autonomy and a parent's right to raise and decide the direction of their children's development.We can discuss what parenting should look like, which forms are optimal or best, which are less effective.If parents today have at their disposal numerous classical (non-biotechnological) means of upbringing and education, which are not prohibited as such, a total ban on GGE understood as an educational and upbringing measure would be unjustified.Potential restrictions should be analyzed and established through a case-by-case procedure, analogous to existing restrictions already provided Page 7 of 10 3 Vol.: (0123456789) by law on non-biotechnological educational methods and means.Second, the argument from the irreversibility of human enhancement applied to children by parents, as well as related arguments about children's autonomy, an open future, and freedom, sound rhetorical when we look at child-rearing practice.The criterion of irreversibility, as well as particularly long-term thinking, does not seem to accompany all those adults who raise children, including society, especially schools.When we send a child today to learn foreign language A, do we think about whether it would not be better for that child to learn language B or C, because the economic and political constellation of the world will in twenty or forty years promote the knowledge of that particular language?Or maybe we shouldn't waste the child's time learning any foreign language at all, because the development of technology will make fluent live communication in all languages possible with the help of technology in the next several years?Do we think about the effects of stressful parenting?Do we think about the long-term effects of one diet or another, one parenting method or another, going to one country or another, etc.? Do these and many other non-biotechnological processes and events remain without influence on the child?And are they really reversible?Can many years spent in stress be reversed, and guaranteed not to have an impact in later life?
It seems that Caplan is correct in his view that it is not the technology that is problematic, but the problem is the apodictic attitude of parents who want to significantly impact their child's life in often irreversible ways and to do so will probably reach for every means available, from training and education to biotechnology ([6], p. 208).
Parents' right to GGE should be limited by the medical risk of negative consequences.Some of the procedures establishing a GGE may be harmful or undesirable under certain circumstances.Because human being is a complex system, applying GGE causing one change may cause dysfunction in other elements or dysfunction of the whole. 3But even then the reversibility of modification justifies its application, or at least not make it more controversial than other reversible methods such as drugs or surgery ( [15], p. 127).
Assuming the inviolability of reproductive rights and the principle of procreative beneficence, we identify the following problem that always arises when parents make decisions about irreversible consequences for the child, whether applied through GGE or cultural (environmental).This is a problem of correctly predicting the optimal characteristics that will serve the child for life, or at least never harm it.Even if we agree that the principle of procreative beneficence implies an obligation on the part of prospective parents to improve their future child while still at the embryonic stage, the problem that arises here is technical and operational.Namely, not all types of traits that can be manipulated in the embryo will ensure the future child and later the adult's lifelong well-being under all conditions.We can imagine that certain traits will be beneficial only in certain environments or only at certain stages of life.It is also difficult to predict the social and cultural trajectory and dynamics of future populations.Therefore, certain rules governing the application of this abstractly understood principle of procreative beneficence are reasonable.One of these is the proposal formulated by Bostrom and Roache to limit GGE to the most general traits that are always positive, such as intelligence, health, and happiness [3].
This rule allows only minimal narrowing of the principle of procreative beneficence.The rationale that greater rather than lesser intelligence or a greater rather than lesser degree of happiness guarantees well-being does not help in deciding to apply for a GGE designed to enable a future child to participate in long-term deep-space missions.And perhaps it is from these general considerations that one concludes recommending the application of such a GGE if, under the circumstances, as assumed in our example, participation in these missions is perceived to be attractive.
A child has the right to be called into existence under good conditions, at least as good as the conditions of the generation that calls it into existence, as well as good as the average conditions of other children.This is a rule on which, at least prima facie, all prospective parents should agree.Paradoxically, however, some of parents' decisions may conflict with this maxim of minimum child welfare.Such an example is when parents who wish to have children agree only on children who are genetically related to them.However, it may be that the genomes of both parents do not guarantee the minimum average welfare of the future child.Even the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does not make it possible to choose a good embryo, because the choice is limited only to those embryos created from the "imperfect" gametes of their parents.The parents, however, do not consent to the use of donor gametes.Their decision conflicts with the maxim of concern for the welfare of the child where this can be maximized.The use of donor gametes is such an option, and one that these parents have not taken advantage of.The parents' approach can be seen as conflicting with the principle of beneficence, in this case, procreative beneficence ( [25], p. 132).
The ethical assessment of GGE from the perspective of feminist bioethics is ambiguous.On the one hand, GGE can be considered an integral part of the right to reproduce, especially in those situations where it is the only option for having genetically related offspring free of genetic diseases.The prohibition of GGE thus interferes with the right to reproduce as long as effective reproduction is impossible without the use of GGE.The negative reproduction right therefore means that no party can interfere with someone's reproduction ( [18], p. 453).
On the other hand, the right to reproduction, of which GGE may be a part, may stigmatize and discriminate against women as stereotypically associated with reproduction and childbearing.Women can be, and can feel both forced, even in a non-direct way, to reproduce and to refrain from reproducing ( [18], 455).In this context, GGE proves to be a double-edged weapon.For some women, it provides opportunities to have offspring, while others may be directly or indirectly, or at least feel, coerced into having children, which would be impossible without GGE.GGE can further the sexist paradigm of medicalization of reproduction and be used as a tool to combat the "disease" that reproductive difficulties are considered to be in this paradigm.There is no doubt that any future scenario involving enhancement of the human germline genome will impose obligations on women rather than men, including the risk of creating pressure and perhaps a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation on women to submit to reproductive technologies for the future good of humanity [24].
One option is GGE, and it is difficult to find justification for prohibiting parents from using GGE in this situation only because an alternative of donor gametes is available.By analogy, we should consider GGE, which may offer optimal adaptation to the new environment.The only area of uncertainty, potentially generating moral controversy, is the future child's possible lack of consent and interest in pursuing the space missions for which GGE predestines them.

Conclusions
This paper discusses only the potential specific context of GGE application, which is the application of GGE to future children born on Earth with a view to their accomplishment of long-term space missions.Common-sense recommendations for the possible acceptance of GGE are offered by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which in its report suggests the following two principles: the principle of welfare and benefit for the future modified child, as well as the principle of social justice [20]. 4The subject of potential moral controversy surrounding GGE considered for a space mission in the circumstances discussed here is the situation in which a future child, despite the parents' rational and good faith understanding of the child's welfare and the principle of procreative beneficence, chooses to remain on Earth despite the benefits associated with participation in long-term space missions.The purpose of the paper was to show that parents-to-be, without biomedical means, are already making many decisions that can affect their future child in ways that cannot be reversed.This certainly weakens the charge of irreversibility of changes addressed to GGE.The paper also points out that parents-to-be are, in a sense, always making difficult decisions affecting their child's future, however they are usually not necessarily interpreted in the same 4 It is worth remembering that biomedical technologies, including GGE, may increase social inequality, as they are likely to be accessible and affordable to the middle class, at the expense of other technologies that are more accessible to the marginalized [10].Page 9 of 10 3 Vol.: (0123456789) way as GGE status in current bioethical discussions.Finally, the paper shows how the implementation of future long-term space missions, assuming they are attractive, may involve the application of GGE and generate serious moral dilemmas while still on Earth.
If GGE were to become permissible, the balance of profits and losses should be favorable.If GGE were to prove safe, better and faster, as well as more efficient than the alternatives, there is no rationale for rejecting it ( [12], p. 239).However, it is worth keeping in mind the perspective of social justice ideas raised by feminist bioethics, which reminds us that science, especially medical science, can be a tool of power and oppression, especially of women.
Funding Konrad Szocik's work on this text was written under the Bekker Fellowship (3rd edition) funded by the National Agency for Academic Exchange (Decision No. PPN/ BEK/2020/1/00012/DEC/1) for a research stay at Yale University (USA) in the academic year 2021/2022.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons.org/ licen ses/ by/4.0/.