Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?

Cavaliere, Giulia

doi:10.1007/s11019-017-9793-y

Cited by 55 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third objection is that PGD with embryo selection at least at present is a sufficiently good alternative to germline gene editing (Cavaliere 2018).…”

Section: Objections and Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects

Nordgren

2019

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human germline gene editing is often debated in hypothetical terms: if it were safe and efficient, on what further conditions would it then be ethically acceptable? This paper takes another course. The key question is: how can scientists reduce uncertainty about safety and efficiency to a level that may justify initiation of first-time clinical trials? The only way to proceed is by well-designed preclinical studies. However, what kinds of investigation should preclinical studies include and what specific conditions should they satisfy in order to be considered well-designed? It is argued that multispecies and multigenerational animal studies are needed as well as human embryo editing without implantation. In order to be possible to translate to first-time clinical trials, animal studies need to satisfy strict conditions of validity. Moreover, embryo studies intended for translation to first-time clinical trials need to correspond to the animal studies in experimental design (with exception of implantation). Only in this way can uncertainty about risk for harm (safety) and prospect of benefit (efficiency) in first-time clinical trials be reduced to a modest level. If uncertainty is not reduced to such a level, first-time clinical trials in germline gene editing should not be initiated.

show abstract

“…A third objection is that PGD with embryo selection at least at present is a sufficiently good alternative to germline gene editing (Cavaliere 2018).…”

Section: Objections and Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects

Nordgren

2019

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PGT acts by screening and selecting unaffected embryos, whereas HGGM could edit out heritable mutations. Therefore, even though PGT would remain the clinical standard, in cases where it cannot provide a solution for couples desiring a biologically-related child, we may find further justification for the utility of HGGM for certain ‘serious’ conditions 9…”

Section: Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

‘Serious’ factor—a relevant starting point for further debate: a response

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this reply, we wish to defend our original position and address several of the points raised by two excellent responses. The first response (De Miguel Beriain) questions the relevance of the notion of ‘serious’ within the context of human germline genome modification (HGGM). We argue that the ‘serious’ factor is relevant and that there is a need for medical and social lenses to delineate the limits of acceptability and initial permissible applications of HGGM. In this way, ‘serious’ acts as a starting point for further discussions and debates on the acceptability of the potential clinical translation of HGGM. Therefore, there is a pressing need to clarify its scope, from a regulatory perspective, so as to prevent individuals from using HGGM for non-therapeutic or enhancement purposes. The second response (Kalsi) criticizes the narrow interpretation of the objectivist approach and the apparent bias towards material innovations when discussing the right to benefit from scientific advancements. As an in-depth discussion of the objectivist and constructivist approaches was beyond the scope of our original paper, we chose to focus on one specific objectivist account, one which focuses on biological and scientific facts. We agree, however, with the critique that material innovations should not be the sole focus of the right to benefit from scientific advancements, which also incorporates freedom of scientific research and access to scientific knowledge scientific freedom and knowledge, including the influence of these on ethical thinking and cultures.

show abstract

“…In its initial stages, human subject research on germline genome editing could be aimed at the development of interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of transmitting genetic anomalies to offspring. For certain couples who cannot produce healthy embryos, germline genome editing may be the only way for them to avoid passing on genetic disorders ( [45], 500; [46,47]). 3 Yet as germline genome editing techniques develop, some speculate about the unprecedented chance to shape the genetic code of children and eventually, influence the genetic makeup of future generations ( [20], 299; [49]).…”

Section: Human Reproduction: Exploring Future Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral and Fictional Discourses on Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Current Responses, Future Scenarios

Balistreri

Hansen

2019

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper gives an introduction to the interdisciplinary special section. Against the historical and ethical background of reproductive technologies, it explores future scenarios of human reproduction and analyzes ways of mutual engagement between fictional and academic endeavors. The underlying idea is that we can make use of human reproduction scenarios in at least two ways: we can use them to critique technologies by imagining terrible consequences for humanity but also to defend positions that favor scientific and technological development.

show abstract

Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?

Cited by 55 publications

References 47 publications

Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects

Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects

‘Serious’ factor—a relevant starting point for further debate: a response

Moral and Fictional Discourses on Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Current Responses, Future Scenarios

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About