Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
↵i Gyngell C,1 Bowman-Smart H and Savulescu J (2019) available at: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing-human-reproduction.
↵ii In particular, they contrast the Nuffield report with the principles advanced by the US National Academies, which they see (rightly, in my view) as being capable of licensing contradictory states of affairs; see: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017)2. It is ironic, then, the NAS report envisions moral discourse primarily in the mode of an institutional review board. (For my response this, see: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing-human-reproduction).
↵iii This inclusive process may offer a way of collectively examining ‘social harms’ and broaching ‘collective action problems’, for which Gyngell et al 1 propose broadening the second Nuffield principle.
Contributors PM is the sole author of this work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This article has been amended since it was first published online. This article has been changed from a Response to a Commentary article.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics
- We need to talk about imperatives
- Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique
- Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?