By Hannah Rahim
New technologies are increasing the accessibility of polygenic embryo screening, which can assess the likelihood of an embryo developing polygenic diseases (e.g., diabetes, schizophrenia) or provide insight into certain polygenic traits (e.g., height, intelligence). This procedure has many complex clinical, social, and ethical implications, but is currently unregulated in the U.S.
By Ashley Shew
Far too often, when people write and talk about technology and disability, stories are deeply shaped by ableism. Often when devices are painted as “solving the problem of disability” or “empowering disabled people,” they suggest that being disabled is itself a problem, and that people should try to be as nondisabled as possible. But pretending to be nondisabled is not a great way to live — to be in hiding or denial, to not give your body and mind the rest they deserve, to hurt yourself trying to live up to expectations and infrastructure sometimes literally designed to keep you out. Technology itself gets painted as heroic and important — and, please, investors, throw more money at the tech industry — when any disability is mentioned. Disability is often appealed to as a justification for technological development, and as a moral imperative toward investment in technological research. This is technoableism as I describe it in my book, Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement.
By Donrich Thaldar
On the issue of human genome editing (HGE), attitudes between bioethics scholars and the general public diverge, as highlighted by my team’s findings from a recent deliberative public engagement study.
In the study, which assessed views on heritable HGE among South Africans, participants adopted a pragmatic risk-benefit approach to specific applications of heritable HGE. This rational pragmatism of the study participants was informed by values such as improving quality of life, equality and (universal) access to healthcare, moral autonomy, and innovation. By contrast, we might characterize bioethics experts as raising principled objections to heritable HGE as a technology, such as Jürgen Habermas’s articulation of the “right” of the prospective child to an “unaltered genome.” (Not one study participant relied on this objection during the more than 20 hours of deliberations.)
By Myrisha S. Lewis
Despite religious and ethical objections, assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization and egg freezing, manages to flourish in the United States, with some states and companies even creating regimes for its insurance coverage. However, reproductive genetic innovation — a term I use to refer to the combination of assisted reproduction with genetic modification or substitution — has yet to receive the same acceptance. Examples of reproductive genetic innovation include mitochondrial transfer, cytoplasmic transfer, and germline gene editing.
Moreover, while many scientists, regulators, and members of the public have called for societal discourse or consensus related to individual reproductive genetic innovation techniques, these calls rarely include an explanation as to how these discourses would be conducted. In a recent article, Normalizing Reproductive Genetic Innovation, I offer four potential avenues for structuring a societal discourse in the U.S. on the topic.
By Donrich Thaldar
South Africans have issued a clarion call for research to move ahead on health-related applications of heritable human genome editing (HHGE), finds my research group’s new public engagement study — the first of its kind in Africa.
The study engaged a diverse group of 30 South Africans in three evenings of deliberations on the governance of HHGE. The methodology entailed (a) facilitated deliberation between the participants with the aim of finding consensus, although consensus was not forced; and (b) ensuring well-informed deliberations by providing participants with balanced, internationally peer-reviewed information about HHGE and the ethical arguments relating to it. The results of these deliberations are summarized briefly below.
By Jack Becker
Discussions about performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are normally all about physical abilities. They revolve around PEDs that can alter strength, speed, stamina, recovery, and even stability. But if every sport were just a competition of physical traits, they’d be pretty boring.
Sports combine physical competition with competition of strategy, technique, and other non-physical components (to varying degrees). While players develop some of these individually, sports also involve coaches and trainers that develop new strategies and techniques without stepping onto the field. Innovations in these non-physical components can certainly enhance a player or team’s performance. So how do they fit into the PED discussion?
By Shelly Simana
Gene editing technologies enable people to directly change their DNA sequence by adding, removing, or replacing DNA bases. Today, for the first time, as Jennifer Doudna and Samuel Sternberg announced in their book, A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution, people “possess the ability to edit not only the DNA of every living human but also the DNA of future generations” (p. xvi). The emergence of new gene editing tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, prime editing, and dubbed SATI, has led to momentous advances in biotechnology as the new tools make gene editing faster, easier, less expensive, and more precise than ever before.
While gene editing technologies offer great promise, they may also introduce risks with far-reaching consequences. This post focuses on the possible “dark side” of gene editing technologies and addresses some threats that the technologies might pose to human lives. While nowadays some of those risks would be deemed “science fiction,” they should be in the back of our minds as we ponder the potential impact of gene editing technologies.
I am a huge fan of FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
He is by far my favorite Trump appointee — though the competition isn’t tough, to be honest— and he is doing great things at FDA on issues such as mobile health, software, and so on.
But in his comments on the news that gene edited embryos in China had led to live births, I think he has it wrong.
“The response from the scientific community has been far too slow and far too tepid, and the credibility of the community to self-police has already been damaged,” he said to Biocentury. “Governments will now have to react, and that reaction may have to take consideration of the fact that the scientific community failed to convincingly assert, in this case, that certain conduct must simply be judged as over the line.” Read More
A recent web series sparked controversy with the headline that “Designer babies aren’t futuristic. They’re already here.” The online articles make the case that disparate access to frozen embryo screening for debilitating diseases—sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, or cystic fibrosis—is “designing inequality into our genes.”
The authors are right that reproductive technology isn’t open to everyone. A single cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF)—the tool that combines sperm and egg in a lab—costs 57% of the average American’s annual income in 2018. The multiple cycles it usually takes to get a baby costs upwards of $100,000. Just fifteen states make insurers cover reproductive technology. Even these often limit coverage mandates to married couples unable to conceive, thereby denying equal benefits to non-traditional families.
Gene editing is at once promising and perilous. Or, as John Oliver said in a recent episode of his news show, it is ”either going to kill all disease or kill every last one of us.”
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is not as amusing as John Oliver, and unlike the summer film “Rampage,” its new gene editing report features neither The Rock nor a genetically modified, 30-foot wolf.
But if you want to understand what we may actually be getting ourselves into, England’s de facto national bioethics commission has produced a useful roadmap for educating the public and addressing concerns. It may the summer read you’ve been looking for.
And if there’s a gene splicer for envy, I’m ready to be CRISPR’d.