16 research outputs found
Ethically Justified Restrictions on Citizen Science: A Perspective from Singapore
No full text10.1080/15265161.2019.1619872The American Journal of Bioethics19838-4
Genetic Affinity and the Right to ‘Three-parent IVF’
No full textWith the recent report of a live birth after use of Mitochondrial replacement therapy, sometimes called ‘Three-parent IVF’, the clinical application of the technique is fast becoming a reality. While the United Kingdom allows the procedure under regulatory scrutiny, it remains effectively outlawed in many other countries. We argue that such prohibitions may violate individuals’ procreative rights, grounded in individuals’ interest in genetic affinity. The interest in genetic affinity was recently endorsed by Singapore’s highest court, reflecting an emphasis on the importance of biological ties found across the globe. We apply that reasoning to make the case for a right to ‘Three-parent IVF’
Vulnerability and the Ethics of Human Germline Genome Editing
No full textThe concept of vulnerability has played an important role in theoretical bioethics as well as in numerous authoritative guidelines on research ethics. The concept helps to identify situations in which research participants and other individuals may be at a heightened risk of experiencing harm. However, existing guidance documents on the ethics of human germline gene editing largely fail to make any reference to considerations of vulnerability. In this article, we discuss this oversight and we highlight the role that vulnerability can play in ethical debates about human heritable genome editing. Future guidance documents on germline gene editing should pay attention to considerations of vulnerability and reference these appropriately
Competencies of Member States Concerned and of Ethics Committees to Assess Trial Applications Under the New EU Clinical Trials Regulation
No full textGermline genome editing: Moratorium, hard law, or an informed adaptive consensus?
No full textWith the development of practical means of human germline genome editing (HGGE) in recent years, there have been calls for stricter regulation and oversight over HGGE interventions with potential for heritable changes in the germline. An international moratorium has been advocated. We examine the practicality of such a proposal, as well as of a regulation through the "traditional" mechanisms of international and municipal laws. We argue that these mechanisms are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives and that the better approach is to engage the international community of stakeholders, researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other workers directly involved in the field in working toward the development of an "informed adaptive consensus". We offer suggestions as to how this may be achieved and how existing indirect levers of regulation may be harnessed toward this end
International Reporting Mechanism for Unethical Germline Gene Editing Experiments Is Needed
No full text10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.10.001Trends in Biotechnology395427-43
