The genome of two completely unrelated individuals is quite similar apart from minor variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms which contribute to the uniqueness of each and every person. These single nucleotide polymorphisms are of great interest clinically as they are useful in figuring out the susceptibility of certain individuals to particular diseases and for recognizing varied responses to pharmacological interventions. This gives rise to the idea of ‘personalized medicine’ as an exciting new therapeutic science in this genomic era. Personalized medicine (...) suggests a unique treatment strategy based on an individual’s genetic make-up. Its key principles revolve around applied pharmaco-genomics, pharmaco-kinetics and pharmaco-proteomics. Herein, the ethical and legal aspects of personalized medicine in a new genomic era are briefly addressed. The ultimate goal is to comprehensively recognize all relevant forms of genetic variation in each individual and be able to interpret this information in a clinically meaningful manner within the ambit of ethical and legal considerations. The authors of this article firmly believe that personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize the current landscape of medicine as it makes its way into clinical practice. (shrink)

In an article recently published in this journal, I raised a puzzle about the control of genetic information, suggesting a situation in which it might turn out that we have a duty to remain in ignorance about at least some aspects of our own genome. In this article, I propose a way that would make sense of how the puzzle arises, and offer a way to resolve it and similar puzzles in future: in essence, we would consider genetic (...) information to be something the distribution of which may be more or less just. We would not know in advance what a just distribution would be, though, and in some cases there might still be a justice-based reason to deny a person genetic information about himself. However, others might also have justice-based claims to be able to access that information. This suggests that there is a possible world in which one person is entitled to at least some genetic information about another, while that other person—to whom the information refers—is not, and that this world would be just. (shrink)

Since the 1970s and more rigorously since the 1990s, many countries have regulated data protection and privacy laws in order to ensure the safety and privacy of personal data. First, a comparison is made of different acts regarding genetic information that are in force in the EU, the USA, and China. In Turkey, changes were adopted only recently following intense debates. This study aims to explore the experts’ opinions on the regulations of the health information systems, data security, privacy, (...) and confidentiality in Turkey, with a particular focus on genetic data, which is more sensitive than other health data as it is a permanent identifier that is inherited to next of kin and shared with other family members. Two focus groups with 18 experts and stakeholders were conducted, discussing topics such as central data collection, legalized data sharing, and the management of genetic information in health information systems. The article concludes that the new Turkish personal data protection law is problematic as the frame of collectible data is wide-ranging, and the exceptions are extensive. Specific laws or articles dedicated to genetic data that also overlook the dimension of discrimination based on genetic differences in Turkey should be taken into consideration. In broader terms, it is intended to put up for discussion that in addition to ethical aspects, economic aspects and legal aspects of health should be included in the discussion to be carried out within the framework of socio-political analyses with culture-specific approaches and cross-culture boundaries simultaneously. (shrink)

New genetic technologies and their applications in biomedicine have important implications for social identities in contemporary societies. In medicine, new genetics is increasingly important for the identification of health and disease, the imputation of personal and familial risk, and the moral status of those identified as having genetic susceptibility for inherited conditions. There are also consequent transformations in national and ethnic collective identity, and the body and its investigation is potentially transformed by the possibilities of genetic investigations (...) and modifications (including the highly controversial terrains of reproductive technologies and the use of human embryos in biomedical research). The papers in this volume, drawn from an international array of authors, address these issues from a variety of national, disciplinary and empirical standpoints. An informative read for postgraduates and professionals in the fields of sociology, social anthropology, science and technology studies, and environmental studies, the chapters comprise empirically based and theoretically informed discussions of key sociological, anthropological, political and ethical issues. Using the resources of a wide range of social science disciplines to provide a comparative approach to complex issues, this superb collection explores the local and global consequences of the new genetics, and analyzes the social implications of these advances for identity formation in a period of rapid social change. (shrink)

According to what McMahan and Savulescu (2024) call the “popular position”, embryo selection is less ethically problematic than gene editing (other things being equal). The Two-Tier View, defended by McMahan and Savulescu, implies that the popular position is mistaken. The authors treat gene editing of embryos similarly to standard cases of medical treatments that promise expected benefits for the (subsequent) person even though gene editing also may create risks of harmful side effects for her. McMahan and Savulescu assume that if (...) gene editing is (successfully) done, it is better for the person who developed from the beneficently edited embryo. And, if the editing had not been done, although it was possible, that would have been worse for the same person in question. Thus, the comparator must always be a possible, even if unlikely, world in which she would have existed. That is why gene editing, in their view, resembles medical treatments. Therefore, assuming that standard medical treatments are not more ethically problematic than embryo selection, they conclude that (in general) gene editing should also be treated as not more problematic than embryo selection. In this paper, I am taking one step further than McMahan and Savulescu in questioning the central assumptions in the bioethical debates about new reproductive technologies. In the previous work, we argued that the very distinction between person-affecting and identity-affecting interventions is based on a questionable form of material-origin essentialism (Żuradzki and Dranseika 2022). Here, I argue that the bipartite distinction between person-affecting and impersonal reasons, as used by McMahan and Savulescu, insufficiently represents different possible counterfactual comparisons between real and merely possible outcomes. In particular, I argue that the evaluation of gene editing requires counterfactual comparisons to situations in which the benefited person might or might not exist. Such evaluation requires an additional class of reasons, let me call them “semi-person-affecting,” that cannot be reduced to either person-affecting or impersonal ones. This aspect of gene editing makes it dissimilar to standard cases of medical treatments. (shrink)

Genetics is a biomedical science that investigates heredity, variability, occurrence of genetic diseases and their prevention. Genetic science has many fields of science, which deal with different genetic processes, methods, aspects and fields of application. The genetic research in Europe related to the individual as the main subject of the research is exposed to a wide range of ethical and legal issues. From the developments in genetic science other sciences have evolved, thanks to which the (...) modern world is able to protect the genetic information of data, and to receive the sanction while ignoring the laws of such data. However, many problems still persist in the field of protection of personal genetic information, such as regulatory standards, the inviolability of an individual, the assurance of freedom and privacy of information. This manuscript attempts to reveal the main aspects of genetic human data protection, to research conduct regulations, ethics and issues related to the protection of individuals, such as protection of privacy, discrimination, confidentiality, etc. The article mainly focuses on the Conventions and Protocols elaborated by the Council of Europe because of its role in bioethics and focus on human rights. The author examined the documents such as the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Biomedical Research, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and others. Genetic discrimination is strictly forbidden by international conventions and declarations, which means that discrimination on the grounds of personal genetic information (diseases, abnormalities) is not possible in all areas, including employment and insurance. However, individuals face some problems in getting a job due to the publicity and information disclosure to their employers, or in increasing the amount of insurance premiums. However, the disclosure of genetic information may have relevant, statutory consequences and the victims may apply to court for defending these rights. It is essential to protect genetic rights, as any form of discrimination against a person on the grounds of their genetic heritage is prohibited and intervention in the health field or disclosure of such information is only possible after the person concerned has given their free and informed consent. (shrink)

For the average person, genetic testing has two very different faces. The rise of genetic testing is often promoted as the democratization of genetics by enabling individuals to gain insights into their unique makeup. At the same time, many have raised concerns that genetic testing and sequencing reveal intensely personal and private information. As these technologies become increasingly available as consumer products, the ethical, legal, and regulatory challenges presented by genomics are ever looming. Assembling multidisciplinary experts, this (...) volume evaluates the different models used to deliver consumer genetics and considers a number of key questions: How should we mediate privacy and other ethical concerns around genetic databases? Does aggregating data from genetic testing turn people into products by commercializing their data? How might this data reduce or exacerbate existing healthcare disparities? Contributing authors also provide guidance on protecting consumer privacy and safety while promoting innovation. (shrink)

In the last 25 years writing in bioethics, particularly in medical ethics, has generally claimed that action is ethically acceptable only if it receives informed consent from those affected. However, informed consent provides only limited justification, and may provide even less as new information technologies are used to store and handle personal data, including personal genetic data. The central philosophical weakness of relying on informed consent procedures for ethical justification is that consent is a propositional attitude, so referentially opaque: (...) consent is given to specific propositions describing limited aspects of a situation, and does not transfer even to closely related propositions. Assembling genetic data in databases creates additional difficulties for ethical justification. This is not because genetic information is intrinsically exceptional, but because the merger of genetic and information technologies make it possible to assemble massive quantities of complex information that defeat individuals' best efforts to grasp what is at stake, or to give or withhold informed consent. The future agenda for bioethics will need to take account of both these limitations of appeals to informed consent. (shrink)

The phenomenon of the New Genetics raises complex social problems, particularly those of privacy. This book offers ethical and legal perspectives on the questions of a right to know and not to know genetic information from the standpoint of individuals, their relatives, employers, insurers and the state. Graeme Laurie provides a unique definition of privacy, including a concept of property rights in the person, and argues for stronger legal protection of privacy in the shadow of developments in human genetics. (...) He challenges the role and the limits of established principles in medical law and ethics, including respect for patient autonomy and confidentiality. This book will interest lawyers, philosophers and doctors concerned both with genetic information and issues of privacy; it will also interest genetic counsellors, researchers, and policy makers worldwide for its practical stance on dilemmas in modern genetic medicine. (shrink)

The impact of genetic technologies is being felt in many aspects of society, including medicine and the legal system, as well as the personal lives of individuals. How do we make sure that all segments of the population are equally aware of these technologies and have ample opportunity to voice opinions and shape the future? One ongoing effort, which began ten years ago and in which we are directly involved, is the Personal Genetics Education Project, a nonprofit initiative housed (...) within and largely supported by the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School. The goal of pgEd is to raise public awareness and promote conversations about the benefits and implications of the genetics revolution in ways that are inclusive of all voices regardless of socioeconomic, educational, ethnic, cultural, or religious background. This essay describes our approach and experience in hopes that they will be of help to others engaged in similar efforts. (shrink)

This article is a revised version of a talk given in lieu of the Ph.D. dissertation: "Huntington´s Disease in Everyday Life. Knowledge, Ignorance and Genetic Risk". The dissertation evolves around the analysis of modern living with risk for a late onset genetic disorder. Here, three aspects of everyday lives faced with Huntington´s Disease (HD) are discussed. First, HD is one aspect of everyday living along with a variety of other aspects. The importance of risk is analysed as personal (...) and changing in changing circumstances. Second, genetic knowledge and technology are not solid universals, but situated and changing, and of varying importance in lives at risk. Last, the ethical rationalities of everyday living, research and clinical practice concerned with a hereditary condition are discussed as complex and contradictory in and across structures of social practice. (shrink)

Reproductive genetic carrier screening provides information about people's chance of having children with certain genetic conditions. Severity of genetic conditions is an important criterion for their inclusion in carrier screening programmes. However, the concept of severity is conceptually complex and underspecified. We analyse why severity is an important concept in carrier screening and for reproductive decision-making and show that assessments of severity can also have normative societal implications. While some genetic conditions are unambiguously associated with a (...) high degree of suffering, there are many factors that contribute to how severe a condition is perceived to be, and perspectives will vary. Attempts to classify genetic conditions according to their severity tend to prioritise biomedical information at the expense of incorporating qualitative aspects of the impact of genetic conditions on people's lives. Further complexity arises because some genotypes can present with variable phenotypes and because some conditions are not always experienced in the same way by all people who have them. To acknowledge this complexity, we argue that an understanding of severity needs to distinguish between the severity of a genetic condition—requiring a generalised approach for purposes of policy development and programme design—and the severity of an instance of a genetic condition in a particular person. Families making reproductive decisions also require access to diverse experiences of the qualitative aspects of living with genetic conditions. As a result, reproductive carrier screening programmes must recognise and respond to the complexity inherent in determining the severity of genetic conditions. (shrink)

[book blurb:] The world is changing so fast that it's hard to know how to think about what we ought to do. We barely have time to reflect on how scientific advances will affect our lives before they're upon us. New kinds of dilemma are springing up. Can robots be held responsible for their actions? Will artificial intelligence be able to predict criminal activity? Is the future gender-fluid? Should we strive to become post-human? Should we use drugs to improve our (...) intimate relationships — or to reduce crime? Our intuitions about questions like these are often both weak and confused. -/- David Edmonds has put together a philosophical task force to get to grips with these challenges. Twenty-nine philosophers present provocative and engaging pieces about aspects of life today, and life tomorrow — birth and death, health and medicine, brain and body, personal relationships, wrongdoing and justice, the internet, animals, and the environment. The future won't look the same when you've finished this book. (shrink)

Non-Identity arguments have a pervasive but sometimes counter-intuitive grip on certain key areas in ethics. As a result, there has been limited success in supporting the alternative view that our choices concerning future generations can be considered harmful on any sort of person-affecting principle. However, as the Non-Identity Problem relies overtly on certain metaphysical assumptions, plausible alternatives to these foundations can substantially undermine the Non-Identity argument itself. In this paper, I show how the pervasive force and nature of Non-Identity arguments (...) rely upon a specific adoption of a theory of modality and identity and how adopting an alternative account of modality can be used to reject many conclusions formed through Non-Identity type arguments. By using Lewis’s counterpart-theoretic account to understand ways we might have been, I outline the basis of a modal account of harm that incorporates a person-affecting aspect. This, in turn, has significant implications for ethical decision-making in areas such as reproductive choice and the welfare of future generations. (shrink)

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder with a childhood prevalence of 5%. In about two-thirds of the cases, ADHD symptoms persist into adulthood and often cause significant functional impairment. Based on the results of family and twin studies, the estimated heritability of ADHD approximates 80%, suggests a significant genetic component in the etiological background of the disorder; however, the potential genetic effects on disease risk, symptom severity, and persistence are unclear. This article provides a brief review of the (...) genome-wide and candidate gene association studies with a focus on the clinical aspects, summarizing findings of ADHD disease risk, ADHD core symptoms as dimensional traits, and other traits frequently associated with ADHD, which may contribute to the susceptibility to other comorbid psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, neuropsychological impairment and measures from neuroimaging and electrophysiological paradigms, emerging as potential biomarkers, also provide a prominent target for molecular genetic studies, since they lie in the pathway from genes to behavior; therefore, they can contribute to the understanding of the underlying neurobiological mechanisms and the interindividual heterogeneity of clinical symptoms. Beyond the aforementioned aspects, throughout the review, we also give a brief summary of the genetic results, including polygenic risk scores that can potentially predict individual response to different treatment options and may offer a possibility for personalized treatment for the therapy of ADHD in the future. (shrink)

This essay highlights some special strengths of Jean Gayon’s approach to theGayon, Jeanon the history of French genetics history of French geneticsFrench geneticsbyGeneticshistory of French genetics providing a partial account of our collaboration. I begin with our first meeting and the work it initiated. I then illustrate key aspects of Jean’s approach to understanding complex histories involving conceptual conflict and conceptual change like those we encountered in our studies of theGayon, Jeanon the history of French genetics history of French geneticsFrench (...) genetics. InGeneticshistory of French genetics my view, Gayon’s great skill in teasing out conceptual connections and analyzing conceptual revisions has sharpened our thinking on topics far beyond those on which any one of us has worked on. Today, his exemplary efforts to explore an enormous range of topics in both breadth and depth provide a model of the role of a scholar, or of a historian-philosopher. (shrink)

Where ethical or regulatory questions arise about an individual’s interests in accessing bioinformation about herself, the value of this information has traditionally been construed in terms of its clinical utility. It is increasingly argued, however, that the “personal utility” of findings should also be taken into account. This article characterizes one particular aspect of personal utility: that derived from the role of personal bioinformation in identity construction. The suggestion that some kinds of information are relevant to identity is not in (...) itself new. However, the account outlined here seeks to advance the debate by proposing a conception of the relationship between bioinformation and identity that does not depend on essentialist assumptions and applies beyond the narrow genetic contexts in which identity is customarily invoked. The proposal is that the identity-value of personal bioinformation may be understood in terms of its instrumental role in the construction of our narrative identities, specifically that its value lies in helping us to develop self-narratives that support us in navigating our embodied existences. I argue that this narrative conception provides useful insights that are pertinent to the ethical governance of personal bioinformation. It illuminates a wider range of ethical considerations in relation to information access; it accounts for variations in the utility of different kinds of information; and it highlights that the context in which information is conveyed can be as important as whether it is disclosed at all. These arguments are illustrated using an example drawn from psychiatric neuroimaging research. (shrink)

Creating Future People offers readers a fast-paced primer on how advances in genetics will enable parents to influence the traits of their children, including their children's intelligence, moral capacities, physical appearance, and immune system. It explains the science of gene editing and embryo selection, and motivates the moral questions it raises by thinking about the strategic aspects of parental choice. Professor Anomaly takes seriously the diversity of preferences parents have, and the limits policymakers face in regulating what will soon be (...) a global market for reproductive technology. Anomaly argues that once embryo selection for complex traits happens it will change the moral landscape by altering the incentives each person faces. All of us will take an interest in the traits everyone else selects, and this will present coordination problems that previous writers on genetic enhancement have failed to consider. Anomaly ends by considering how genetic engineering will transform humanity. Key Updates to the Second Edition · Significant revisions to the Preface and three separate chapters to include more details about what will be scientifically possible in the coming years and the moral issues these developments will raise · New and substantial coverage of embryo selection (guided by polygenic scores) for minimizing the risk of genetic diseases · Engagement with all important, new publications on the science of genetic enhancement. (shrink)

Advances in genetic technology in general and medical genetics in particular will enable us to intervene in the process of human biological development which extends from zygotes and embryos to people. This will allow us to control to a great extent the identities and the length and quality of the lives of people who already exist, as well as those we bring into existence in the near and distant future. Genes and Future People explores two general philosophical questions, one (...) metaphysical, the other moral: (1) How do genes, and different forms of genetic intervention (gene therapy, genetic enhancement, presymptomatic genetic testing of adults, genetic testing of preimplantation embryos), affect the identities of the people who already exist and those we bring into existence? and (2) How do these interventions benefit or harm the people we cause to exist in the near future and those who will exist in the distant future by satisfying or defeating their interest in having reasonably long and disease-free lives? Genes and Future People begins by explaining the connection between genes and disease, placing genetic within a framework of evolutionary biology. It then discusses such topics as how genes and genetic intervention influence personal identity, what genetic testing of individuals and the knowledge resulting from it entails about responsibility to others who may be at risk, as well as how gene therapy and genetic enhancement can affect the identities of people and benefit or harm them. Furthermore, it discusses various moral aspects of cloning human beings and body parts. Finally, it explores the metaphysical and moral implications of genetic manipulation of the mechanisms of aging to extend the human life span.The aim Genes and Future People is to move philosophers, bioethicists, and readers in general to reflect on the extent to which genes determine whether we are healthy or diseased, our identities as persons, the quality of our lives, and our moral obligations to future generations of people. (shrink)

When the complete human genomehas been sequenced, everyone of us will becomea potential candidate for genetic counselingand testing. Within a short period of timeeveryone will obtain his personal geneticpassport identifying deleterious andsusceptibility genes. With the availability ofpresymptomatic tests for late-onset disordersand the possibilities of prevention andtreatment, the conflict between directivenessand non-directiveness will dominate thecounseling setting. Despite general consent onproviding genetic information in a nondirectivefashion to preserve value neutrality andenhance client's autonomy, there is no acceptedcommon definition of what non-directivenessreally (...) is or ought to be. The article tries toelaborate some aspects which might be fruitfuland clarifying in the complex issues involvedin the black box of genetic counseling. (shrink)

In 1933 Margaret Lasker, a biochemist who worked at the labs of Montefiore Hospital in New York, developed an accurate method for the differentiation between pentosuria and diabetes. Research into pentosuria, and mostly its genetic aspects, became Lasker’s lifelong passion. Since research was not part of her job description, she conducted the chief part of her study in her home kitchen. Lasker’s extensive and personal correspondence with her patients and their families may be the secret key for her success (...) in maintaining a prolonged research career against all odds. Laker’s last article was published in 1955 in Human Biology, presenting data on 72 cases of pentosuria, which occurs almost exclusively in Ashkenazi Jews. More than half a century later, and long after Lasker was gone, her well kept data and family records allowed the discovery of two mutations in the DCXR gene, by Mary-Claire King and her team. (shrink)

Congenitally infertile woman such as those with Turner syndrome or Mayer Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome have available the technologies of oocyte harvestation, cryropreservation, in-vitro fertilization, and gestational surrogacy in order to have genetically related offspring. Since congenital infertility results in a variety of experiences that impacts on nearly every aspect of a person’s life, in the future it is possible that these women might desire a congenitally infertile child through the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis so as to share this common (...) bond. While infertility results in a relatively normal quality of life, it is morally wrong to necessitate the future use of infertility services with its variable success rate on a child. Also, whereas the woman has fundamental reproductive autonomy, she lacks the substantive autonomy regarding the specific characteristics of her child. Finally, the infertile community does exhibit a strong presence, but it lacks characteristics that define it as a culture. (shrink)

Intrinsic value and animal integrity are two key concepts in the debate on the ethics of the genetic engineering of laboratory animals. These concepts have, on the one hand, a theoretical origin and are, on the other hand, based on the moral beliefs of people not directly involved in the genetic modification of animals. This ‘external’ origin raises the question whether these concepts need to be adjusted or extended when confronted with the moral experiences and opinions of people (...) directly involved in the creation or use of transgenic laboratory animals. To answer this question, 35 persons from the practice of biomedical research who are directly involved in genetic engineering (scientists, biotechnicians, animal caretakers and laboratory animal scientists) were interviewed. They were asked to give their moral opinion on different aspects of the genetic engineering of animals and to react to statements about the concepts of intrinsic value and animal integrity. Analysis of the interviews showed that, contrary to what is often assumed, the respondents embraced these concepts, even those senses that (more) specifically apply to genetic engineering. And although the respondents raised some objections that go beyond issues of animal welfare, these objections could quite well be expressed in terms of the concepts of intrinsic value and animal integrity. In short, the results of the present study strongly suggest that these concepts do not have to be adjusted or extended in the light of the moral experiences and opinions from practice. (shrink)

This volume attempts to show why ontology matters for a proper grasp of issues in bioethics. -/- Contemporary discussions on bioethics often focus on seeking solutions for a wide range of issues that revolve around persons. The issues in question are multi-layered, involving such diverse aspects as the metaphysical/ontological, personal, medical, moral, legal, cultural, social, political, religious, and environmental. In navigating through such a complex web of issues, it has been said that the central problems philosophers and bioethicists face are (...) ethical in nature. In this regard, biomedical sciences and technological breakthroughs take a leading role in terms of shaping the sorts of questions that give rise to ethical problems. For example, is it ethical to keep terminally ill patients alive on dialysis machines or artificial ventilators? Is it ethical to take someone’s vital organs upon death and transplant them into another person’s body without any prior consent from a deceased person? Reproductive techniques also raise complicated ethical issues involving in vitro fertilization, contraceptives, prenatal testing, abortions, and genetic enhancements. Moreover, biomedical issues raise ethical problems in regards to research on human subjects, stem cell research, and enhancement biotechnology. The beginning and end of life issues bring up their own complicated ethical conundrums involving, among other things, terminating life support and euthanasia. -/- This book approaches such complex bioethical questions by engaging in ground-level debates about the ontology of persons. This is a non-negotiable first step in taking steps forward in seeking a plausible solution(s) for the complex ethical problems in bioethics. Although the contributors in this book advance their arguments in their own ways, they all agree on one crucial methodological point: the importance of taking the ontology of persons for bioethics seriously. This is the spirit that brings the contributors of this book together as they seek to build their case(s) concerning the nature of persons. (shrink)

Intrinsic value and animal integrity are two key concepts in the debate on the ethics of the genetic engineering of laboratory animals. These concepts have, on the one hand, a theoretical origin and are, on the other hand, based on the moral beliefs of people not directly involved in the genetic modification of animals. This ‘external’ origin raises the question whether these concepts need to be adjusted or extended when confronted with the moral experiences and opinions of people (...) directly involved in the creation or use of transgenic laboratory animals. To answer this question, 35 persons from the practice of biomedical research who are directly involved in genetic engineering (scientists, biotechnicians, animal caretakers and laboratory animal scientists) were interviewed. They were asked to give their moral opinion on different aspects of the genetic engineering of animals and to react to statements about the concepts of intrinsic value and animal integrity. Analysis of the interviews showed that, contrary to what is often assumed, the respondents embraced these concepts, even those senses that (more) specifically apply to genetic engineering. And although the respondents raised some objections that go beyond issues of animal welfare, these objections could quite well be expressed in terms of the concepts of intrinsic value and animal integrity. In short, the results of the present study strongly suggest that these concepts do not have to be adjusted or extended in the light of the moral experiences and opinions from practice. (shrink)

A lot of interest has been generated by the possibility of deriving gametes from embryonic stem cells and bone marrow stem cells. These stem cell derived gametes may become useful for research and for the treatment of infertility. In this article we consider prospectively the ethical issues that will arise if stem cell derived gametes are used in the clinic, making a distinction between concerns that only apply to embryonic stem cell derived gametes and concerns that are also relevant for (...) gametes derived from adult stem cells. At present, it appears preferable to use non-embryonic stem cells for the derivation of gametes. Adult stem cell derived gametes do not present any problems with regard to the moral status of the human embryo, bypass the safety risks linked to SCNT and do not present any ambiguity or novel problems with regard to informed consent, psychological consequences for the child or genetic parenthood. A remaining ethical concern, however, regards the safety of the procedure in terms of the welfare of the resulting children. This should spark a thorough reflection on how far one must go to accommodate a person’s wish to have a genetically related child. (shrink)

The revolutionary potential of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technique has created a resurgence in enthusiasm and concern in genetic research perhaps not seen since the mapping of the human genome at the turn of the century. Some such concerns and anxieties revolve around crossing lines between somatic and germline interventions as well as treatment and enhancement applications. Underpinning these concerns, there are familiar concepts of safety, unintended consequences and damage to genetic identity and the creation of designer children (...) through pursuing human enhancement and eugenics. In the policy realm, these morally laden distinctions and anxieties are emerging as the basis for making important and applied measures to respond to the fast-evolving scientific developments. This paper argues that the dominant normative framing for such responses is insufficient for this task. This paper illustrates this insufficiency as arising from a continued reliance on misleading genetic essentialist assumptions that generate groundless speculation and over-reactionary normative responses. This phenomenon is explicit with regard to prospective human genetic enhancements. While many normative theorists and state-of-the-art reports continue to gesture toward the influence of environmental and social influences on a person and their traits and capacities, this recognition does not extend to the substance of the arguments themselves which tend to revert to the debunked genetic determinist framework. Given the above, this paper argues that there is a pressing need for a more central role for sociological input into particular aspects of this “enhancement myth” in order to give added weight, detail and substance to these environmental influences and influence from social structures. (shrink)

Much legislation dealing with the uses of genetic information could be criticised for exceptionalising genetic information over other types of information personal to the individual. This paper contends that genetic exceptionalism clouds the issues, and precludes any real debate about the appropriate uses of genetic information. An alternative to “genetically exceptionalist” legislation is to “legislate for fairness”. This paper explores the “legislating for fairness” approach, and concludes that it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both how legislation (...) is drafted, and how it is interpreted. The uncomfortable conclusion is this: policy-makers and legislators must tackle head-on the difficult policy questions concerning what should and should not be done with genetic information. Only by confronting this crucial issue will they achieve a workable legislative solution to the problems caused by genetic information. (shrink)

Is information about a person's genome, whether derived from the analysis of DNA or otherwise, protected by the right to privacy? If it is, why and in what manner? It often appears that some people believe that the answer to this question is to be found in molecular genetics itself. They point to the rapid progress being made in basic and applied aspects of this field of biology; this progress has remarkably increased what is known about human genetics. Since knowledge (...) of a particular person's genetic makeup entails a potential intrusion into that person's most private realms and exposes him or her to dire results if revealed to others, they argue, the law needs to protect “genetic privacy.” There is nothing inherently wrong with this account, but it certainly presupposes that we know—and agree about—what it means to protect privacy and, indeed, what interests are implicated in the concept and why they matter. Rather than make this assumption, in this essay I first elaborate a concept of privacy before turning to the potential privacy implications that arise at the intersection of human genetics and the field of insurance. I argue that the core value here is self-determination broadly conceived—that control over one's genetic information may be important for achieving self-determination—but that at least in the context of contracts for life insurance, we should be reluctant to recognize “rights” that would permanently preclude the use of genetic data by insurers. (shrink)

The ArgumentThis article considers three major problems with the concept of genes for human personality traits: uncertainty about what human personality is; what we mean when we say there is a gene “for” a mental attribute; and the complexity of interactions between genes and environment, and among the genes themselves. It then draws on examples from empirical human genetic studies by the author and his colleagues in order to suggest that the concept of genes for human (...) class='Hi'>personality traits nevertheless does have some validity, and also that we may be on the brink of discovering genes with major effects on human personality. This possibility, in particular its ethical aspects, has aroused some public concern. It is suggested that confidential information about an individual's genes does not differ in principle from other confidential information about him or her, and that the ability to affect genes and their expression, temporarily or permanently, does not differ ethically from our current ability to affect other aspects of an individual's physical and psychological functioning. Genes for potential offspring, contained in ova and sperm cells, constitute a special case. (shrink)

The problem of the creation of artificial man and the creation of artificial intelligence are issues that have now become not just potential, but also actual scientific tasks. The original genetic kinship of philosophy and literature as forms of human culture and meaning formation made it possible to comprehend the most important problems in works rich in ideological content and beautiful in form. The subject of the research is the philosophical aspects of the problem of the creation of artificial (...) man in the classic works of fantasy literature of the XIX-XX centuries. This goal is achieved by consistent consideration and comparison of philosophical and anthropological ideas that can be isolated from the works of Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Mary Shelley, Herbert George Wells and M.A. Bulgakov. Hermeneutical method as interpretation and reconstruction of meanings, comparative historical analysis, philosophical comparative studies are used as the methodological basis of this historical and philosophical research. The novelty of the research lies in the historical and philosophical reconstruction of the problem of creating an artificial person, posed for the first time on the pages of the world art classics. The very idea of creating an artificial man was a continuation of the God-fighting aspirations of the Renaissance and the embodiment of the ardent desire to become not only on a par with the Creator, but also to surpass Him. When creating the image of the homunculus, Goethe also had in mind the contrivance, artificiality and fruitlessness of many enlightenment ideas, because the enlighteners questioned the very existence of God, putting a scientist-creator in His place. Goethe's idea of the futility and danger of experimenting with human nature was later developed by Mary Shelley, H. G. Wells and Mikhail Bulgakov. Wagner's homunculus and the creation of Dr. Frankenstein are the closest to the idea of man that prevailed in the philosophy of Modern times and educational pedagogy. Powerful notes of philosophical foresight of many plot moves of the coming history of mankind sound in the novel by Wells (the creation of Dr. Moreau) and the story of Bulgakov (Sharikov). (shrink)

Noah Rosenberg et al.'s 2002 article “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” reported that multivariate genomic analysis of a large cell line panel yielded reproducible groupings (clusters) suggestive of individuals' geographical origins. The paper has been repeatedly cited as evidence that traditional notions of race have a biological basis, a claim its authors do not make. Critics of this misinterpretation have often suggested that it follows from interpreters' personal biases skewing the reception of an objective piece of scientific writing. I (...) contend, however, that the article itself to some degree facilitates this misrepresentation. I analyze in detail several verbal and visual features of the original article that may predispose aspects of its racial interpretation; and, tracing the arguments of one philosopher and one popular science writer, I show how these features are absorbed, transformed into arguments for a biological basis of race, and re-attributed to the original. The essay demonstrates how even slight ambiguities can enable the misappropriation of scientific writing, unintentionally undermining the authors' stated circumspection on the relationship between cluster and race. (shrink)

What does it take for an individual to be personally responsible for behaviors that lead to increased risk of disease? We examine three approaches to responsibility that cover the most important aspects of the discussion of responsibility and spell out what it takes, according to each of them, to be responsible for behaviors leading to increased risk of disease. We show that only what we call the causal approach can adequately accommodate widely shared intuitions to the effect that certain causal (...) influences—such as genetic make-up or certain social circumstances—diminish, or undermine personal responsibility. However, accepting the causal approach most likely makes personal responsibility impossible. We therefore need either to reject these widely shared intuitions about what counts as responsibility-softening or undermining or to accept that personal responsibility for behaviors leading to increased risk of disease rests on premises so shaky that personal responsibility is probably impossible. (shrink)

When President Obama laid out his vision for the U.S. Precision Medicine Initiative in a 2016 Boston Globe op‐ed, he cautioned, “[I]t only works if we collect enough information first.” “Collecting information” is an apt way to describe the subject of both books reviewed here. Jenny Reardon's The Postgenomic Condition: Ethics, Justice, and Knowledge after the Genome traces the history of the Human Genome Project and efforts around the globe to obtain blood samples to extract not only genetic data (...) but also meaning from them. Barbara Prainsack's Personalized Medicine: Empowered Patients in the 21st Century? concerns the capture of digital, quantifiable, and computable information about nearly all aspects of people's lives in the pursuit of personalized medicine. Reardon and Prainsack critique scientists’ and corporations’ appeals to liberal democracy, justice, and empowerment to collect more and more information about people. They reveal the limitations and frequent superficiality of those appeals and remind us that person‐centric ethics rather than data‐centric research is needed to realize a more democratic, just, and empowered society. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that lawmakers must abandon their previous reluctance to engage with questions of personal identity (PI). While frequently seen as an esoteric subject, of limited interest outside of academic philosophy departments, I attempt to show that, in fact, assumptions about PI—and its durability in the face of certain psychological or genetic changes—underpin many current legal rules. This is most perhaps obviously exemplified with regard to reproductive technologies. Yet the Parfitian challenge to identify a victim of (...) ‘bad’ reproductive choices has been largely overlooked in framing legislative responses to such technologies. Furthermore, I argue, it is not only with regard to emerging technologies that questionable assumptions about PI play a role; legal responses to questions about the attribution of criminal responsibility, and about the treatment of demented or brain-injured people, necessitate a frank engagement with such questions. It may be, however, that a multi-faceted approach to PI, which takes account of genetic, psychological and social factors—will prove a better fit for the myriad needs of the legal system than any sort of ‘unified theory of identity’. (shrink)

In the evaluation of genomic high-throughput technologies, the idea of “utility” plays an important role. The “clinical utility” of genomic data refers to the improvement of healthcare outcomes, its “personal utility” to benefits that go beyond healthcare purposes. Both concepts are contested. Moreover, there are only few empirical insights regarding their interpretation by those professionally involved or personally affected. Our paper presents results from qualitative research (20 semi-structured interviews) regarding professionals’ and personally affected people’s views on the utility of genomic (...) information. We find that the discussion of clinical utility is the domain of professionals who primarily consider aspects of test validity and clinical outcomes. By contrast, personal utility plays a prominent role in affected persons’ discussions. Four different aspects are addressed: (a) life and family planning, (b) relief and justification, (c) self-knowledge and self-determination, and (d) entertainment. These differences have important implications for informed consent and counseling in the context of genomic high-throughput technologies. (shrink)

Purpose Human genomic research demands very large pools of data to generate meaningful inference. Yet, the sharing of one’s genetic data for research is a voluntary act. The collection of data sufficient to fuel rapid advancement is contingent on individuals’ willingness to share. Privacy risks associated with sharing this unique and intensely personal data are significant. Genetic data are an unambiguous identifier. Public linkage of donor to their genetic data could reveal predisposition to diseases, behaviors, paternity, heredity, (...) intelligence, etc. The purpose of this paper is to understand individuals’ willingness to volunteer their private information in this high-risk/high-reward context. Design/methodology/approach The authors collect survey data from 273 respondents and use structural equation modeling techniques to analyze responses. Findings The authors find statistical support for our theorization. They find that while heightened awareness of the benefits and risks of sharing correlates with increased privacy concerns, the net impact is an increase in intention to share. Social implications The findings suggest that prescriptive awareness might be an effective tool with which policy-makers can gain the sufficient voluntary participation from individuals necessary to drive large-scale medical research. Originality/value This study contributes a theoretically and empirically informed model which demonstrates the impact of awareness and privacy concern on individuals’ willingness to share their genetic data for large-scale HGR. It helps inform a rising class of data sufficiency problems related to large-scale medical research. (shrink)

This paper focuses on experiences from a case study dealing with the Swiss type of a consensus conference called “PubliForum” concerning “Genetic Technology and Nutrition” (1999). Societal and ethical aspects of genetically modified food meanwhile can be seen as prototypes of topics depending on the involvement of the public through a participatory process. The important role of the lay perspective in this field seems to be accepted in practice. Nevertheless, there is still some theoretical controversy about the necessity and (...) democratic legitimacy of participatory processes in general, and especially about those dealing with technological or environmental problems (sustainable development) concerning society. From an ethical point of view, a lot of heterogeneous problems concerning contents and procedures of public participation can be pointed out, not only on the theoretical level but also in practice, e.g., concerning the communication process between laypersons and experts. The intention of our paper is to give hints and to clarify criteria that support the communication process leading to a dialog of autonomous citizens and which especially consider ethical aspects in the field. One important result is that there must be an orientation for all members of a consensus conference having clear rules and knowing their different roles that support transparency, credibility, and fairness of the whole procedure and a “good product”: a substantial final document or citizens’ report. (shrink)

Direct-to-consumer personal genetic profiling services that claim to predict people’s individual disease risks may promise a new era of ‘personalised healthcare’, but a report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has found that the results are often inconclusive and more evidence should be provided by the companies who sell them. In September 2008, the Council established a Working Party, which I chaired, to consider the ethical issues raised by developments in medical profiling and online medicine. One of our primary (...) tasks was to investigate the burgeoning market for personal genetic profiling services. Two years on, the Council has published its findings. The resulting report2 raises a number of concerns about personal genetic profiling services and puts forward a series of policy recommendations to address these concerns. (shrink)

Analysis of the mechanisms underlying sex determination and sex differentiation in Drosophila has provided evidence for a complex but comprehensible regulatory hierarchy governing these developmental decisions. It is suggested here that the pattern of sexual differentiation and dosage compensation characteristic of the male is a default regulatory state. Recent results have provided, in addition, some surprising and intriguing conclusions: (1) that several of the critical controlling genes produce more transcripts than was predicted from the genetic analyses; (2) that setting (...) of the alternative sex‐specific states of the doublesex (dsx) locus involves differential transcript processing; and (3) that some aspects of sexual differentation require the prolonged action of certain elements of the regulatory hierarchy. These findings are discussed in connection with the current model of sex determination in Drosophila. (shrink)

The soaring promises made by personalized genetic medicine advocates are probably loftier than those in any other medical or scientific realm today. Are they justified?

A multicomponential model of authenticity is presented which includes psychosocial, cultural, intrapsychic, personality and capacity related and neurobiological aspects of authenticity. Genetic, political and ethnic influences could also involved in authentic etiology. More research is needed into the correlates of authenticity in order to develop adequate intervention and prevention programs for individuals who demonstrate a lack of authenticity. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire (...) genetic information undermines the capacity for autonomous decision making. The claim is that it is incoherent to defend a choice that is inimical to autonomy by appealing to autonomy. In this paper, I suggest that the choice not to know in the context of genetic testing does not undermine self-authorship, which is a key aspect of autonomous decision making. In the light of this, the incoherence objection to the right not to know seems less compelling. (shrink)

The values of individuals who have never had the capacity to express their preferences are often overlooked or even ignored in the decision-making process. The case of “Michael,” a non-verbal young adult with a genetic condition and intellectual disability, is presented to challenge the traditional approach of relying solely on clinical indicators and the “best interest” standard narrowly construed in healthcare decision-making. Michael's interaction with his environment, gleaned through his family's input, illustrates that values and quality of life can (...) be discerned through observed behaviors and preferences, even in the absence of communicative ability. We argue for a broader definition of “values” that encompasses any aspect of life that brings meaning or enjoyment to the individual. This model not only personalizes care for never-capacitated individuals but may also be applied to other incapacitated populations, such as those with dementia, suggesting that past directives may not always align with their evolving values and interests. Underlying this expanded understanding of values in healthcare is a patient-centered approach that accounts for personal elements that contribute to an individual's sense of purpose and satisfaction. (shrink)