Article Text
Abstract
In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing (HGE). The Nuffield report was notable for finding that HGE could be morally permissible, even in cases of human enhancement. In this paper, we summarise the findings of the Nuffield Council report, critically examine the guiding principles they endorse and suggest ways in which the guiding principles could be strengthened. While we support the approach taken by the Nuffield Council, we argue that detailed consideration of the moral implications of genome editing yields much stronger conclusions than they draw. Rather than being merely ‘morally permissible’, many instances of genome editing will be moral imperatives.
- genetic engineering
- autonomy
- informed consent
- distributive justice
- enhancement
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Dr CG conducted the initial research, helped drafted the initial manuscript, made revisions and prepared the manuscript for submission. HBS researched and summarised the Nuffield Council report and other institutional statements, and edited the manuscript. Professor JS conceptualised the project, helped draft the initial manuscript, provided feedback on drafts and made revisions to the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding CG, HBS and JS, through their involvement with the Murdoch, received funding from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Programme.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Not applicable.
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
Other content recommended for you
- Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- Guerrilla eugenics: gene drives in heritable human genome editing
- We need to talk about imperatives
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- Performance of polygenic risk scores in screening, prediction, and risk stratification: secondary analysis of data in the Polygenic Score Catalog
- The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics
- Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al
- Three models for the regulation of polygenic scores in reproduction
- Calibration of polygenic risk scores is required prior to clinical implementation: results of three common cancers in UKB