Kindle Notes & Highlights
in the individual’s genome,
variants that decrease the risk of some diseases may increase the risk of others.
Such concerns are heightened in HHGE because the unwanted changes would be inherited by all the individual’s descendants.
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine
r...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
said that such research could not be ethically done at present but might be in the future.
The use of experimental procedures in medicine is ethical only if there are no existing measures to treat or prevent the disease.
given that the transmission from infected father to embryo is unlikely, and the risks to the future children unknown, genetically modifying embryos was not justified.
unable to give genuinely informed consent,
forged.
ignored the warnings
the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. In 2020,
recommended that initial uses of HHGE should be limited to
monogenic diseases that cause severe morbidity or premature death, in which parents have no option for having a geneticall...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
what’s the advantage of modifying human embryos to prevent genetic disease when that outcome can be avoided by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and PGT.
One consideration S&M leave out is the utilitiarian good of eliminating future disease (reducing need for screening?).
not all patients can produce unaffected embryos
why should scientists, governments, philanthropists, and other investors direct resources to address the desire for genetically healthy and genetically related children using genome-editing technology when, in almost all cases, there are safer, simpler, and cheaper ways of achieving this goal and building loving families?
successful HHGE of the affected embryos would increase the number of viable embryos available for transplantation,
simplistic understanding of genetic inheritance and a failure to consider all the environmental influences that shape human beings.
Assuming that concerns about safety and efficacy can be resolved, would the use of HHGE for such enhancement purposes be wrong?
It makes no more sense for the genetically modified person to worry if she’s genuinely more resistant to depression than it would for the child who naturally inherited the long allele to wonder if she is.
The parents are imposing their values, their particular conception of what’s worth doing, on the child even before the child is born.
However,
this suggests that people who were not genetically modified as embr...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
a...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
their interests and...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
If autonomy is not infringed when we get the genes we have through chance—the genetic lottery—autonomy is not infringed when genes are the result of parental choice so long as parents do not force their children into particular activities.
Hyper-parents don’t merely want to guide their children but to control everything about them.
It is tragic when parental love is conditioned on a child’s being a certain kind of person or when children feel that the price of being true to themselves is the loss of parental acceptance.
At the same time,
good parents do try to shape their children i...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Someone might think that it’s fine to try to inculcate in children desirable traits, such as responsibility or intellectual curiosity, if this is done through education or parental influence, but it would be wrong to use HHGE for the exact same purpose even if HHGE were shown to be effective and safe; HHGE would determine the child’s make-up in a way that environmental forces, including education, do not. Thus, HHGE would restrict the child’s choices in a way that education does not.
The effect of genes cannot be separated from environmental factors like education, healthcare, nutrition, and many others.
education, which is clearly environmental, actually changes the connections in the brain,
Imagine a couple who both have this genetic
lack of self-confidence
if HHGE were proved to be safe and effective, they would also be interested in using it to knock out the deleterious gene. Their motive for using genetic modification wouldn’t be to exert control over the child but to improve the child’s well-being. It’s hard to see why that is objectionable.
take account of the savings that could be achieved within a healthcare system by curing or mitigating chronic conditions that would otherwise require more costly lifelong medical interventions.
Instead of simply rejecting a potentially beneficial therapy because it would cost too much, we should figure out ways to make it affordable.
perpetuate the advantages the wealthy already enjoy
exacerbating inequality.
societies in which some people are fabulously wealthy and others can barely survive are neither just nor sustainable. We should be working to reduce inequality,
you can get the same social advantages by sending your children to elite schools and sending them abroad?
It is not a foregone conclusion how a technology will be used or made available. That is a social decision. If it turns out that HHGE is effective in increasing intelligence, for example, it could be made available to families that wanted it.
The technology would not have to be used to increase inequality; it could be used to decrease it.
The problem with the “playing God” objection is that it is too broad. It would make all attempts to prevent or cure disease immoral,
It’s being reckless or unwise that is objectionable, not “playing God.”
United Nations
“human genome underlies
inherent dignity
