Germline Modification Carries Risk of Major Social Harm
By Marcy Darnovsky,
Nature
| 06. 04. 2008
Your Editorial 'New sources of sex cells' (Nature 452, 913; 2008), on the potential use of pluripotent stem-cell-derived gametes (PSCDGs) for germline genetic modification and enhancement, suggests that the prospect of stem-cell-derived gametes could trigger renewed calls for regulating human biotechnologies. In those discussions we must, as you warn, be wary of impeding basic research. But we must be equally willing to draw lines proscribing socially pernicious applications.
Germline (that is, inheritable) modification is the most socially consequential and ethically dubious application of human biotechnology; its implications have been explored from a wide range of perspectives. Most of these discussions have focused on the social meaning and repercussions of genetic manipulation of the human species, not on the moral status of human embryos. One can strongly support human-embryo research and still oppose germline modification. Conversely, some opponents of abortion rights support germline modification, so long as no embryos are destroyed in the process.
Although there may be scientific and therapeutic benefits from research on PSCDGs, the case for any such benefits from using these cells for human germline modification is...
Related Articles
By Priyanka Runwal, Chemical and Engineering News | 08.05.2024
Saritee Sanodiya, 26, has spent countless days wondering if she’ll ever live a “normal” life. Growing up, Sanodiya often missed school, frequenting the hospital for sudden, life-threatening drops in her hemoglobin levels and excruciating pain in her joints. High fever...
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024