Genome editing of human embryos: the ethics of utilitarianism
https://doi.org/10.25557/2073-7998.2023.12.3-11
Abstract
The principle of utility comes to the fore to justify and legislate new diagnostic and treatment methods, in particular human genome editing. The article examines the main ethical and legal trends in this area through the prism of utilitarianism. Editing a portion of human germline DNA using CRISPR/Cas technology has generated much debate regarding the possible benefits and risks for individuals and society. On the one hand, significant social groups get a chance to get rid of the disease in future generations, on the other hand, future children will be exposed to risks associated with specific and nonspecific changes in the genome, without their consent. Another important problem that is considered in the article from the perspective of utilitarianism is the social consequences of genome editing, such as social discrimination, if the technology is used to human enhancement. The object of the study is one of the most discussed and controversial issues in bioethics – genome editing of human embryos. The article provides an ethical and philosophical analysis of the legal aspects of editing the genome of a human embryo from the point of view of hygienic treatment.
About the Author
A. O. Borisova
N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
1, Ostrovityanova st., Moscow, 117997
References
1. Bentham J. Leading Principles of a Constitutional Code, for Any State. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: William Tait. 1843: 267-275
2. Bentham, J. Anarchical Fallacies. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: William Tait. 1843: 489-535
3. Prokofiev A. Utilitarizm [Utilitarianism]. Filosofskaya antropologiya [Philosophical anthropology]. 2019; 5(2): 192–215. DOI: 10.21146/2414-3715-2019-5-2-192-215 (In Russ.)
4. Mikhel D.V. Sotsial’naya antropologiya meditsinskikh sistem: meditsinskaya antropologiya. Saratov [Social anthropology of medical systems: medical anthropology]. Saratov. 2010:20 (In Russ.)
5. Zhukov Yu.G. Vklad CH. Darvina i G. Spensera v stanovleniye ucheniya ob evolyutsionnoy etike [Contribution of Ch. Darwin and G. Spencer in the formation of the doctrine of evolutionary ethics]. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnyye issledovaniya [Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Studies]. 2018; 4(21): 16-19 (In Russ.)
6. Darwin Ch. Proiskhozhdeniye cheloveka i polovoy podbor [The origin of man and sexual selection]. Moscow: RUGRAM, 2013: 464 (In Russ.)
7. Grebenshchikova E.G. Bioetika v teorii i na praktike: dva vzglyada na odnu problemu. (Svodnyy referat) [Bioethics in theory and in practice: two views on one problem. (Summary abstract)]. Sotsial’nyye i gumanitarnyye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura. Seriya 8. Naukovedeniye. Referativnyy zhurnal. INION RAN [Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and foreign literature. Science Studies, Series 8. Abstract journal. INION RAS]. 2021: 7-198. (In Russ.)
8. The Crispr Baby Scientist Is Back. Here’s What He’s Doing Next. Dec 21. 2022 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.wired.com/story/the-crispr-baby-scientist-is-back-heres-what-hes-doing-next /(accessed: 01.09.2023)
9. Controversial Chinese scientist He Jiankui proposes new gene editing research. Simone McCarthy. By Simone McCarthy, CNN. Updated 4:52 AM EDT, Mon. July 3. 2023 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/03/china/he-jiankui-gene-editing-proposal-china-intl-hnk-scn/index.html (date of reference: 01.09.2023)
10. Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies. 10 June 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01770-x
11. Vvedenskaya E.V. Mnozhestvennost’ morali na primere geneticheskikh eksperimentov nad embrionami [Plurality of morality on the example of genetic experiments on embryos]. Vos’moy Rossiyskiy filosofskiy kongress «Filosofiya v politsentrichnom mire». Simpoziumy. Sbornik nauchnykh statey. M. Rossiyskoye filosofskoye obshchestvo; Institut filosofii RAN; MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova. Izdatel’stvo «Logos», OOO «Novyye pechatnyye tekhnologii» [The Eighth Russian Philosophical Congress «Philosophy in a Polycentric World». Symposia. Collection of scientific articles. M. Russian Philosophical Society; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Lomonosov Moscow State University. Logos Publishing House, LLC «New Printing Technologies»]. М. 2020: 453-455 (In Russ.)
12. Human Genome Editing and a Global Socio-bioethics Approach. Hastings Center report. November-December 2020 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315259 / (accessed: 01.09.2023). doi: 10.1002/hast.1200.
13. Mol A. Mnozhestvennoye telo. Ontologiya v meditsinskoy praktike [Multiple body. Ontology in medical practice]. 2017: 220 (In Russ.)
14. Grebenshchikova E.G., Andreyuk D.S., Volchkov P.Yu., Vorontsova M.V. et al. Redaktirovaniye genoma embrionov cheloveka: mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod [Editing the genome of human embryos: an interdisciplinary approach]. Vestnik RAMN [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences]. 2021;76 (1): 86-92. (In Russ.) doi: https://doi.org/10.15690/vramn1269
15. Rabinou P. Sotsiobiologiya i biosotsial’nost’ [Sociobiology and biosociality]. Chelovek [Human]. 2019; 30 (6): 8-24. (In Russ.) doi: 10.31857/S023620070007663-6
16. Rebrikov D. V. Redaktirovaniye genoma cheloveka [Human genome editing]. Vestnik RGMU [Vestnik RGMU]. 2016;3:4-15. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24075/brsmu.2016-03-01
17. Townsend, B.A. (2020) Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors Townsend BMC. Medical Ethics. Oct 6. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33023591 / (accessed: 01.09.2023). doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00527-w
18. Trikoz, E.N., Mustafina-Bredikhina, D.M., Gulyaeva, E.E. Pravovoye regulirovaniye protsedury gennogo redaktirovaniya: opyt SSHA i stran YES [Legal regulation of the gene editing procedure: the experience of the USA and EU countries]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Yuridicheskiye nauki [Bulletin of the RUDN. Series: Legal Sciences]. 2021; 25(1): 67–86. (In Russ.) doi: 10.22363/2313-2337-2021-25-167-86
19. Application for funding by the National Institute of Health for research using gene editing technologies in human embryos. April 28, 2015 [Website]. URL: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos (accessed: 06.09.2023)
20. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: Global Discussion [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK343651 / (accessed 06.09.2023)
21. The Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing: continuation of the global discussion. Materials of the seminar — in brief. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; politics and global issues. Washington (DC): Publishing House of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). January 10, 2019 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535994 / (accessed: 01.09.2023)
22. WHO launches a global registry for editing the human genome. August 29, 2019 [Website]. URL: https://www.who.int/news/item/2908-2019-who-launches-global-registry-on-human-genome-editing (accessed 06.09.2023)
23. WHO issues new recommendations on editing the human genome in order to improve public health.July 12, 2021[Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.who.int/ru/news/item/12-07-2021-who-issuesnew-recommendations-on-human-genome-editing-for-the-advancement-of-public-health (accessed: 06.09.2023)
Review
For citations:
Borisova A.O. Genome editing of human embryos: the ethics of utilitarianism. Medical Genetics. 2023;22(12):3-11. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25557/2073-7998.2023.12.3-11
Views:
647
Email this article 