Is germline genome‐editing person‐affecting or identity‐affecting, and does it matter

Bibliographic Data

ID21504644
AuthorsAndrew Mcgee (0000-0003-2795-5328, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Business & Law Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Queensland Australia, corresponding author), Sinead Prince (0000-0002-7370-9526, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore)
Year2025
Volume39
Issue3
Pages250-258
Publication date2025-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBioethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0269-9702 • E-ISSN: 1467-8519
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/bioe.13385
PMID39821416
OpenAlexW4406536644
LanguageEN
Citations received1

Writers have debated whether germline genome‐editing is person‐affecting or identity‐affecting. The difference is thought to be ethically relevant to whether we should choose genome‐editing or choose preimplantation genetic diagnosis and embryo selection, when seeking to prevent or produce bad conditions (e.g., cystic fibrosis, or deafness) in the individuals who will grow from the embryo edited or selected. We consider the very recent views of three prominent bioethicists and philosophers who have grappled with this issue. We claim that both sides are right, but that the sense in which genome‐editing is person‐affecting is less important, morally, when the aim is to have healthy children. Since this is the predominant objective of engaging in embryo selection and genome‐editing, and since there are certain risks, at least for now, with genome‐editing, it remains better, morally, to engage in embryo selection than genome‐editing

Aesthetics · Biology · Gene · Genome · Genome editing · Germline · Computer Science · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Philosophy · Psychology · Genetics

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access