Related Experiment Videos
Is the 'serious' factor in germline modification really relevant? A response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers
1Derecho Publico, UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain INIGO.DEMIGUELB@EHU.EUS.
Abstract:
Should we use human germline genome modification (HGGM) only when serious diseases are involved? This belief is the underlying factor in the article written by Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers to which I now respond. In my opinion, the answer to this question should be negative. In this paper, I attempt to show that there are no good reasons to think that this technology should be limited to serious diseases once it is sufficiently proven to be safe and efficient. In fact, opting otherwise would negatively harm human beings' right to the highest standard of health that unmodified embryos could promote. Therefore, the issue should not be so much to define adequately what a serious disease is, but rather to elucidate whether this concept should play any role beyond the context of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). This paper argues that we should not accept the similarity between technologies such as PGT and HGGM because they face different challenges and offer totally different possibilities. Therefore, we are in urgent need to build a completely new ethical architecture that covers the application of germline editing in human embryos. As a part of that process, a much deeper debate on the necessity of distinguishing different disease types is required.
Insights
Human germline genome modification (HGGM) should not be restricted to serious diseases once proven safe and effective. Limiting HGGM risks infringing on the right to health, necessitating a new ethical framework for germline editing applications.
Area of Science:
- Bioethics
- Genetics
- Reproductive Medicine
Background:
- Current ethical debates often restrict human germline genome modification (HGGM) to cases involving serious diseases.
- This perspective is challenged by the potential of HGGM to impact the right to health.
- Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is often compared to HGGM, but they present distinct ethical challenges.
Purpose of the Study:
- To argue against limiting HGGM solely to serious diseases.
- To explore the ethical implications of HGGM beyond disease treatment.
- To advocate for a new ethical framework for germline genome modification.
Main Methods:
- Philosophical and ethical analysis of HGGM.
- Critique of existing ethical arguments for disease-specific limitations.
- Comparative analysis of HGGM and PGT.
Main Results:
- There are no compelling ethical reasons to restrict HGGM to serious diseases once safety and efficacy are established.
- Limiting HGGM could potentially violate an individual's right to the highest attainable standard of health.
- The concept of 'serious disease' may not be a suitable criterion for regulating HGGM beyond PGT.
Conclusions:
- A new ethical architecture is urgently needed for human germline genome modification.
- The distinction between different disease types requires deeper ethical consideration in the context of germline editing.
- HGGM applications should be evaluated based on broader ethical principles rather than solely on disease severity.