Article Text

Download PDFPDF
‘Serious’ science: a response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers
  1. Satvir Kalsi
  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA
  1. Correspondence to Satvir Kalsi, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA; skalsi{at}


In their paper ‘The “serious” factor in germline modification’, Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers rightly highlight the ambiguity in the oft-utilised term ‘serious’ in legal discussions of human germline genome modification.1 They suggest interpretation of this term may benefit from a framework based on human rights rather than solely objectivist or constructivist frameworks. In this response, I show the authors provide a narrow and hasty dismissal of objectivist frameworks by defining objectivism broadly as ‘based on biological facts’ early on but later criticising genetic treatment lists, a single narrow implementation of only some of the facts. Furthermore, I will show their consideration of the right to science is biassed towards the material innovations of science, the authors succeed in recognising but fail in elaborating on the knowledge gained from scientific progress; knowledge which may ultimately update moral intuitions and change the nature of ethical conversation across cultures.

  • ethics
  • genethics
  • genetic engineering
  • genetic selection

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Correction notice This article has been updated since it was first published online. The author name 'Ravitsky' was incorrectly spelt as 'Ravisky' and has now been amended.

  • Contributors I am the sole author of this publication.

  • Funding The author has 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.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you