A fundamental concern about applying gene editing to human embryos is how to limit the risk of errors, or “off-target” effects. One makes an edit to change a bad gene’s defect, and presumably prevent the disease the defective gene would cause. But the current methods to do that, although apparently highly selective, might still make …
Continue reading "A new cautionary tale for heritable genome editing"
Last week, this space on this blog addressed concerns about overconfidence in judgments about the COVID pandemic, and intimated that some humility is in order, especially on the part of the experts doing the advising and opining. Now turn the perspective around—humility is in order on the part of us non-experts, receiving and reacting to …
Continue reading "Pandemic Priorities in the Face of Uncertainty"
As I write this I have been fielding messages from a friend and interlocutor who, a knowledgeable health industry professional, seems quite confident that had President Trump been successfully impeached—or, better, never elected—the COVID-19 pandemic would not have been such a trouble for us. And there may well be something, more than a little something, …
Continue reading "Uncertainty, Arrogance, and Mourning in the time of Pandemic"
04/24/2020
“The Science” and Moral Judgments
Some common mislocutions are simply insufferable. One is, “It’s in my/our DNA,” implying that a commitment or habit or practiced behavior is genetically hard-wired. No, it isn’t. Another is, “I/we will follow the science” to make judgments. If by this is meant, “I will face facts rather than engage in wishful thinking,” then hear, hear. …
03/05/2020
More notes on suicide—assisted or not
As one with the letters “M” and “D” after my name, I get emails from a service called Medscape (subscription generally required), with links to a variety of articles on things medical. This week brings a link to a piece under the title “Inexact Science: is Patient Eligible for Medical Aid in Dying?” The upshot: …
In May of 2019 The New Bioethics carried a paper (purchase or subscription required) by Jennifer Gumer of Columbia and Loyola Marymount Universities, summarizing an argument against heritable genome editing (the kind in which an embryo’s genes are edited so that the change will be passed down to the subject’s descendants), based on Belmont principalism. …
Continue reading "A principalist argument against heritable genome editing"
02/06/2020
An argument for heritable genome editing
Some weeks ago, a utilitarian perspective in favor of heritable genome editing was published (purchase or subscription required to read). In it, the author, Kevin Smith of Abertay University in the United Kingdom, begins with a general defense of utilitarianism, the ethical philosophy that what is morally good is what produces the greatest good for …
01/16/2020
Controlling gene editing
The title does not mean societal or legal control of gene editing technology. Rather, it speaks of controlling, or shutting off, a specific gene editing process. In retrospect, it had to be the case that there is a resistance, or control, mechanism for the CRISPR system, the gene-editing machinery that functions as a way for …
Bioethics TV