title: Should we change the human genome?
abstract: Should we change the human genome? The most general arguments against changing the human genome are here in focus. Distinctions are made between positive and negative gene therapy, between germ-line and somatic therapy, and between therapy where the intention is to benefit a particular individual (a future child) and where the intention is to benefit the human gene-pool. Some standard arguments against gene-therapy are dismissed. Negative somatic therapy is not controversial. Even negative, germ-line therapy is endorsed, if the intention is to cure a certain individual (a future child). In rare cases, positive therapy on somatic cells may be warranted. Germ-line therapy may become a valuable method of preventing harm, through 'genetic vaccination'. If safe methods evolve, it is harmless (though vain), to try to achieve more ambitious goals. Prospective parents should not be prevented from exercising this harmless kind of parental authority. The paper concludes: There is a moral limit to how much we ought to manipulate the human genome, however. We ought not to jeopardize the continued existence of mankind. We ought not to develop methods of germ-line therapy intended in a radical manner to improve human nature, and we ought to leave to prospective parents to decide in individual cases what kind of intervention shall take place.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Sweden.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tännsjö
mesh_terms: D005075:Biological Evolution; D005053:Eugenics; D030342:Genetic Diseases, Inborn; D005818:Genetic Engineering; D024861:Genetic Enhancement; D015316:Genetic Therapy; D015894:Genome, Human; D005854:Germ Cells; D040821:Human Characteristics; D006801:Humans; D009014:Morals; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012941:Social Responsibility; D012945:Social Values; D013045:Species Specificity; D035761:Wedge Argument