Human gene therapy and slippery slope arguments

Area of Science:

• Genetics
• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Gene therapy, particularly altering human genetic makeup, frequently triggers 'slippery slope' arguments.
• These arguments raise concerns about unintended future consequences of current therapeutic decisions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine the logical and rhetorical forms of slippery slope arguments in the context of gene therapy.
• To assess the validity of these arguments against empirical evidence in human gene therapy.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the logical structure of slippery slope arguments.
• Evaluation of rhetorical slippery slope arguments, including historical comparisons.
• Comparison of argument claims with factual developments in human gene therapy.

Main Results:

• The logical slippery slope argument posits an unsustainable distinction between somatic and germ line gene therapy.
• The rhetorical slippery slope argument draws parallels between current gene therapy and historical atrocities.
• Both argument forms rely on unprovable probabilities, lacking empirical validation.

Conclusions:

• Slippery slope arguments, both logical and rhetorical, are not empirically supported in the context of human gene therapy.
• These arguments should be largely disregarded in ethical discussions concerning gene therapy.
• Focus should remain on evidence-based moral line-drawing for gene therapy applications.