Germ-line enhancement of humans and non-humans.
The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified.
Loftis
J Robert
JR
Department of Philosophy, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, USA.
D032821:Commodification; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D005053:Eugenics; D030841:Food, Genetically Modified; D033141:Genetic Determinism; D005818:Genetic Engineering / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000941:ethics; D024861:Genetic Enhancement / Q000941:ethics*; D005854:Germ Cells; D006801:Humans; D007221:Industry; D019368:Nature; D030821:Plants, Genetically Modified; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012926:Social Control, Formal; D012935:Social Justice; D035502:Trust