3 ms·

I don't agree that uncertainty is a valid objection in ethical discussions. That reasoning leads to circular denial: we can't study something because we don't k

by tremon 7y ago

I don't agree that uncertainty is a valid objection in ethical discussions. That reasoning leads to circular denial: we can't study something because we don't know enough about it, and we don't know enough about it because we can't study it. Rather, I would suggest that the ethical discussion focuses on intended and unintended side-effects of a specific direction of study, and whether the long-term effects can be aligned with healthy societal progress. Personally, I think that pregestational gene editing doesn't have many secondary benefits, and that the technology, once available, will have a huge negative effect on society (both on the gene pool and on equality). So I would argue against this line of research should be prohibited based on that, not based on the limits of our knowledge.

contravariant 7y ago
No, uncertainty very much is a valid objection when you're manipulating the genome of a human being. Even from a purely utilitarian point of view you should at least be able to rule out the terrible consequences such an experiment could have. Besides even if a particular experiment cannot be done because the outcome is uncertain and we can't have certainty without the experiment then that is circular but not circular reasoning. We cannot simply declare something to be ethical purely because declaring it unethical would not allow us to do something.
phissk 7y ago
Medical ethics focus on the patient, not society. An edit that was to the advantage of the baby, with zero disadvantages, but so much so that such edits could give an unfair advantage in society would be ethical. In fact you could argue that not doing it if the means were available would be unethical.
vinniejames 7y ago
You essentially disregard one weak argument, and replace it with a worse one: "negative effect on society...both on the gene pool and on equality". First you contradict your original dismissal, any negative effects on the gene pool most likely can be solved by more research. Asserting a negative effect on equality is an equally damaging and incorrect opinion. A similar analogy here would be arguing vaccines should be avoided and prevented because not everyone has access to them, thereby having negative effects on equality

by tremon 7y ago

contravariant 7y ago

No, uncertainty very much is a valid objection when you're manipulating the genome of a human being. Even from a purely utilitarian point of view you should at least be able to rule out the terrible consequences such an experiment could have. Besides even if a particular experiment cannot be done because the outcome is uncertain and we can't have certainty without the experiment then that is circular but not circular reasoning. We cannot simply declare something to be ethical purely because declaring it unethical would not allow us to do something.

phissk 7y ago

Medical ethics focus on the patient, not society. An edit that was to the advantage of the baby, with zero disadvantages, but so much so that such edits could give an unfair advantage in society would be ethical. In fact you could argue that not doing it if the means were available would be unethical.

vinniejames 7y ago

You essentially disregard one weak argument, and replace it with a worse one: "negative effect on society...both on the gene pool and on equality". First you contradict your original dismissal, any negative effects on the gene pool most likely can be solved by more research. Asserting a negative effect on equality is an equally damaging and incorrect opinion. A similar analogy here would be arguing vaccines should be avoided and prevented because not everyone has access to them, thereby having negative effects on equality