Is germline genome-editing person-affecting or identity-affecting, and does it matter?

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Genetics
• Philosophy

Background:

• Debate exists on whether germline genome-editing is person-affecting or identity-affecting.
• This distinction influences ethical choices between genome-editing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) with embryo selection.
• The goal is preventing or producing specific conditions in offspring, such as cystic fibrosis or deafness.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze recent philosophical views on germline genome-editing ethics.
• To determine the ethical relevance of person-affecting vs. identity-affecting distinctions.
• To compare the ethical standing of genome-editing and embryo selection for preventing genetic conditions.

Main Methods:

• Review and analysis of recent philosophical literature on germline genome-editing.
• Examination of arguments concerning person-affecting and identity-affecting criteria.
• Ethical evaluation of genome-editing versus embryo selection in the context of reproductive goals.

Main Results:

• Both person-affecting and identity-affecting perspectives hold validity.
• The person-affecting nature of genome-editing is less ethically significant when the primary goal is healthy offspring.
• Current risks associated with genome-editing make it less preferable than embryo selection.

Conclusions:

• Embryo selection is currently the more ethically sound choice over germline genome-editing.
• The predominant objective of achieving healthy children guides this ethical preference.
• Ongoing risks with genome-editing necessitate caution and favor established methods like embryo selection.