The key interests to consider are the reproductive interests of parents, and the welfare of the future person.
Reproductive interests of parents
These are principally:
- the interest in having a child;
- the interest in their child being genetically related to them; and
- the interest in their child being free of inherited disorders….
Welfare of the future person….
Principle 1: The ‘welfare of the future person’
Gametes or embryos that have been subject to genome editing procedures (or that are derived from cells that have been subject to such procedures) should be used only where the procedure is carried out in a manner and for a purpose that is intended to secure the welfare of and is consistent with the welfare of a person who may be born as a consequence of treatment using those cells….
In relation to the interests of the individuals directly involved, principally the prospective parents and their offspring, there are plausible circumstances in which heritable genome editing interventions could be morally acceptable, subject to appropriate protections of the welfare of the future person. Perhaps the most obvious of these circumstances, because they directly affect the welfare of the future person, are that risks of adverse outcomes for offspring and subsequent generations should have been assessed through relevant research. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be confident that all adverse outcomes have been identified or to assess their likelihood of occurrence with confidence before any actual clinical use (and before data are available from a great many clinical uses).
Others in society
The prospect of genome editing becoming a widespread technology in human reproduction remains speculative at this stage, but if it should happen, there are potentially significant impacts for society….
It is a common speculation in bioethical debates that the separation between the act of sexual intercourse and the objective of human procreation will become normalised, with the result that, in the distant future, much or even most human reproduction will be managed by specialist scientists, in order to secure the prospective parents’ preferred outcome. Visions like this extend the possibilities of freeing the genetic endowment of the next generation from the choice of reproductive partner first by broadening the choice of gametes (to include third-party donors) and second by enabling finer discriminations through embryo selection and finally cell and genome modification. Many writers have predicted that, whereas assisted reproduction has become normalised in many contemporary societies (where it was initially seen as monstrous, at least in the contemporary media), unassisted sexual reproduction may come to be seen as abnormal.
Principle 2: Social justice and solidarity
The use of gametes or embryos that have been subject to genome editing procedures (or that are derived from cells that have been subject to such procedures) should be permitted only in circumstances in which it cannot reasonably be expected to produce or exacerbate social division or the unmitigated marginalisation or disadvantage of groups within society.
In a number of generations,it is imaginable that a schism might arise between the ‘gene rich’ and ‘gene poor’, which could have the effect of undermining ‘genetic solidarity’ as abasis for moral treatment of others. An extrapolation of this idea imagines a distinction arising between the ‘merely human’ and something beyond the human – a ‘post-human’–in a way that sets up a potentially agonistic opposition….
In departing from human nature and its particular forms of embodiment, it is claimed that a post-human being might no longer be committed to human forms of morality. Such a being might stand in relation to the present era of human beings in much the same relation as human beings now stand to non-human animals.
Ethical principles
Taking all of these findings together, we conclude that the potential use of genome editing to influence the characteristics of future generations could be ethically acceptable in some circumstances, but only if certain conditions are met.
We propose two ethical principles to guide the development and application heritable genome editing interventions.
The use of heritable genome editing interventions should be intended to secure, and be consistent with, the welfare of a person who may be born as a consequence of interventions using genome edited cells.
The use of heritable genome editing interventions should be consistent with social justice and solidarity so that it should not be expected to increase disadvantage, discrimination, or division in society.
For a related post on the Council’s report, see here.
Leave A Comment