Exploring the Ethics of Gene Editing vs Genetic Selection

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Problem with Gene Editing and Genetic Selection
3. Exploring the Claim: Gene Editing vs Genetic Selection
4. The Case of Wayne: Gene Editing
   • Standard Benefits of Gene Editing
   • Counterfactual Scenarios and Alternative Options
   • The Dilemma for Defenders of Gene Editing
5. The Case of Shane: Genetic Selection
   • Comparative Benefits of Genetic Selection
   • The Non-Identity Problem
6. The Importance of Condition Severity
   • The Likelihood of Choosing Alternative Options
   • The Weakening Case for Gene Editing
7. The Paradox of Gene Editing as a Standard Practice
8. Individual Counterfactuals and Temporal Sequence
9. Conclusion

Introduction

Gene editing and genetic selection have been central topics of debate when it comes to bioethical considerations and the implications for future generations. The question of whether one is morally preferable to the other has sparked controversy and differing opinions. In this article, we will delve into the complexities of this debate, examining the arguments made in favor of gene editing and genetic selection, and exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach.

The Problem with Gene Editing and Genetic Selection

Before we can fully analyze the claim that gene editing is morally preferable to genetic selection, it is important to understand the underlying issues associated with these practices. Gene editing involves altering the DNA of embryos to remove or modify genes associated with genetic disorders. This approach aims to prevent the development of certain inherited conditions in future children. On the other hand, genetic selection involves choosing embryos for implantation based on their genetic makeup, selecting those without any harmful genetic traits.

Both gene editing and genetic selection offer the potential to improve the lives of future generations by reducing the risk of genetic disorders. However, the moral implications and overall benefits of each approach have come under scrutiny.

Exploring the Claim: Gene Editing vs Genetic Selection

The claim put forth by defenders of gene editing is that it is morally preferable to genetic selection because it provides standard benefits to the future child. This claim rests on the premise that gene editing can confer benefits that genetic selection cannot, particularly in terms of non-existent counterfactual comparative benefits.

In order to understand this claim more clearly, let us examine two hypothetical cases: the gene editing of Wayne and the genetic selection of Shane.

The Case of Wayne: Gene Editing

Wayne's parents, Betty and Adrien, are carriers of cystic fibrosis, a genetic disorder. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), they are able to create an embryo. This embryo carries the genes associated with cystic fibrosis. However, with the use of gene editing, the faulty genes are replaced, ensuring that Wayne is born free of cystic fibrosis. The claim made by defenders of gene editing is that Wayne has benefitted from this procedure because, without it, he would have been born with the disorder.

While this reasoning seems logical, it is essential to consider alternative scenarios. For instance, what if Betty and Adrien had chosen not to pursue gene editing and instead discarded the affected embryo, opting for another IVF treatment? In this case, the counterfactual scenario suggests that the embryo would not have developed into Wayne. This raises questions about the true benefits of gene editing in such situations.

The Case of Shane: Genetic Selection

Now, let us examine the case of Shane. Like Wayne's parents, Darren and Cedric are carriers of cystic fibrosis. Through IVF, they are able to create multiple embryos. Among these embryos, one does not carry the faulty genes associated with cystic fibrosis. They select this embryo for implantation, ensuring that Shane is born without the disorder.

Defenders of the claim we challenge argue that genetic selection does not benefit Shane because the alternative for Shane would be non-existence. By selecting a different embryo, another child (e.g., Jane) would have been born with cystic fibrosis. However, this line of reasoning poses a dilemma when it comes to moral judgments and the non-identity problem.

The Importance of Condition Severity

One key factor that influences the likelihood of alternative options being chosen in gene editing or genetic selection is the severity of the condition being addressed. If the condition is severe and poses a significant risk to the child's well-being, it is more likely that parents would opt for alternative options. In contrast, for less severe conditions or carrier statuses, parents may choose to continue with the affected embryo.

This raises an intriguing implication: the stronger the reasons for pursuing gene editing, the trivial the conditions become. This notion challenges the generalization that gene editing is morally preferable to genetic selection.

The Paradox of Gene Editing as a Standard Practice

In the scenario where gene editing becomes a standard practice, our reasoning takes a startling turn. If our arguments are correct, genetic selection can also potentially harm the future child. This assertion contradicts the prevailing belief that genetic selection is a morally sound approach. It calls into question our understanding of the non-identity problem and the implications of choosing among several potential children.

Individual Counterfactuals and Temporal Sequence

It is essential to consider how counterfactual scenarios are evaluated and how we determine the closest possible world in individual cases. The temporal sequence of decision-making plays a significant role in determining the counterfactual scenarios. The retrospective reinterpretation of events and choices made during the embryo stage adds complexity to the evaluation process.

Conclusion

While our arguments might appear to challenge prevailing beliefs and spark controversy, it is essential to engage in critical and nuanced discussions about gene editing and genetic selection. The claim that gene editing is morally preferable to genetic selection due to the standard benefits it provides cannot be broadly generalized. The severity of the condition being addressed and the likelihood of alternative options significantly impact the moral judgments surrounding these practices. Ultimately, understanding the complexities and potential consequences of gene editing and genetic selection is crucial in shaping future bioethical considerations.

Highlights:

• The debate between gene editing and genetic selection in ethics
• Challenging the claim of gene editing's moral superiority
• Comparative benefits and alternative scenarios
• The non-identity problem and its implications in genetic selection
• The relationship between condition severity and moral reasoning
• The paradox of gene editing as a standard practice
• Evaluating individual counterfactuals and temporal sequence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can gene editing and genetic selection benefit the future child?

A: Both approaches have the potential to benefit future children by reducing the risk of genetic disorders. However, the moral implications and overall benefits are complex and depend on various factors, such as the severity of the condition and the likelihood of alternative options.

Q: Does gene editing lead to the non-existence of the counterfactual child?

A: In some cases, selecting gene editing may result in the non-existence of the counterfactual child. However, this is not always the case, and the decision to pursue gene editing or genetic selection depends on various factors, including the severity of the condition and the parents' preferences.

Q: How does condition severity impact the decision between gene editing and genetic selection?

A: Condition severity plays a significant role in determining the likelihood of alternative options being chosen. The more severe the condition, the higher the motivation to pursue gene editing or alternative methods. Less severe conditions may lead parents to continue with the affected embryo or explore other options.

Q: Can genetic selection harm the future child?

A: Our arguments suggest that in certain cases, genetic selection can potentially harm the future child. This challenges the prevailing belief that genetic selection is always a morally sound approach. The non-identity problem and the evaluation of counterfactual scenarios add complexity to this discussion.

Q: How should individuals weigh the moral implications of gene editing and genetic selection?

A: It is crucial to engage in nuanced discussions and consider various factors, including the conditions being addressed, the severity of the condition, and the likelihood of alternative options. Understanding the complexities and potential consequences of these practices is essential in shaping future bioethical considerations.

Resources:

• Practical Ethics YouTube Channel (for video interviews with academics)
• Jeff McMahan's Work on Ethics