Gene Editing, Identity and Benefit

Abstract

Some suggest that gene editing human embryos to prevent genetic disorders will be in one respect morally preferable to using genetic selection for the same purpose: gene editing will benefit particular future persons, while genetic selection would merely replace them. We first construct the most plausible defence of this suggestion—the benefit argument—and defend it against a possible objection. We then advance another objection: the benefit argument succeeds only when restricted to cases in which the gene-edited child would have been brought into existence even if gene editing had not been employed. Our argument relies on a standard account of comparative benefit which has recently been criticised on the grounds that it succumbs to the so-called ‘pre-emption problem’. We end by considering how our argument would be affected were the standard account revised in an attempt to evade this problem. We consider three revised accounts and argue that, on all three, our critique of the benefit argument stands.

Reorienting the Debate on Biological Individuality: Politics and Practices

“…Fortunately, many philosophers are already debating holobiont individuality in light of its potential theoretical, practical, and ethical consequences (e.g., Chiu and Eberl 2016 ; Skillings 2016 ; Kirby 2017 ; Şencan 2019 ; Suárez and Stencel 2020 ; Formosinho et al 2022 ). Similarly, McConwell’s proposal to study individuality in synthetic biology and biotechnology could be connected to the vast body of existing work in bioethics about identity in relation to cloning, genetic modification, and gene editing (e.g., Hauskeller 2004 ; Ankeny and Bray 2018 ; Douglas and Devolder 2022 ). Another politically and ethically relevant topic that McConwell fails to mention is the individuality of pregnant organisms and foetuses; again, this is a topic that has received recent attention, for instance in relation to immunological and metabolic criteria of individuality (Kingma 2020 ; Meincke 2021 ; Morgan 2022 ).…”

Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome Edit

“…What is striking now that genetic modification, in the form of genome editing, is actually possible is the fragility of the grounds for this belief. While some contemporary writers have continued to maintain that genome editing would be person affecting (Cavaliere 2018;Gyngell, Douglas, and Savulescu 2017;Gyngell and Savulescu 2016;Powell, Kahane, and Savulescu 2012), Tom Douglas and Katrien Devolder have recently called this claim into question (Douglas and Devolder 2019). In order to understand why, we need both a better understanding of the science of genome editing and a willingness to confront some difficult philosophical-and perhaps even metaphysical-questions.…”