Human gene therapy: down the slippery slope?

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Genetics
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Slippery slope arguments are debated, with some viewing them as valid and others as fallacious.
• A trend suggests these arguments may be valid but unsubstantiated in many cases.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the strength of slippery slope arguments specifically applied to human gene therapy.
• To analyze logical and empirical versions of the slippery slope argument in the context of gene therapy.

Main Methods:

• Distinguishing between three versions of slippery slope arguments: two logical and one empirical.
• Evaluating human gene therapy against each of these three versions.
• Referencing existing literature on slippery slope arguments concerning gene therapy.

Main Results:

• Logical slippery slope arguments against gene therapy fail due to the possibility of making relevant distinctions between different uses.
• The empirical slippery slope argument lacks supporting evidence for a negative progression.
• Accepting the empirical argument would necessitate broad, undesirable healthcare modifications for consistency.

Conclusions:

• Slippery slope arguments, in both logical and empirical forms, do not convincingly support prohibiting human gene therapy.
• The potential for nuanced application of gene therapy undermines logical slippery slope concerns.
• Lack of empirical evidence and the broad implications for healthcare render the empirical slippery slope argument against gene therapy unpersuasive.