Gene Editing, Identity and Benefit.

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Human Embryo Gene Editing
• Genetic Selection

Background:

• Debates exist on the moral implications of human embryo gene editing versus genetic selection for preventing genetic disorders.
• A key distinction proposed is that gene editing benefits specific future individuals, while genetic selection merely replaces them.

Purpose of the Study:

• To construct and defend the 'benefit argument' for gene editing over genetic selection.
• To identify and analyze limitations of the benefit argument, particularly concerning the 'pre-emption problem'.
• To evaluate the impact of revised comparative benefit accounts on the critique of the benefit argument.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
• Examination of the standard account of comparative benefit.
• Critique of the benefit argument through logical objection and consideration of revised theories.

Main Results:

• The benefit argument, while plausible, is vulnerable to objections, especially when the edited child would exist regardless of the intervention.
• The standard account of comparative benefit faces the 'pre-emption problem', potentially undermining the benefit argument.
• Critiques of the benefit argument remain valid even when considering revised accounts of comparative benefit.

Conclusions:

• The moral preference for gene editing over genetic selection based on the benefit argument is conditional and faces significant philosophical challenges.
• Further refinement of ethical frameworks for evaluating novel reproductive technologies like gene editing is necessary.
• The 'pre-emption problem' highlights complexities in assessing comparative benefits in reproductive decision-making.