Gene Editing Technologies, Utopianism, and Disability Politics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22250570 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Amber Knight (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Pages | 93-115 |
| Publication date | 2023-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of Philosophy of Disability (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2690-3326 |
| Publisher | Philosophy Documentation Center (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.5840/jpd20237319 |
| OpenAlex | W4383110671 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
Scholars have long speculated about what a future affected by gene editing technologies might hold. This article enters current debates over the future of gene editing and the place of disability within it. Specifically, I evaluate contemporary utopian thinking about gene editing found in two different schools of thought: transhumanism and critical disability studies, ultimately judging the latter to be richer and more politically promising than the former. If we take it as our goal to protect and promote future people’s autonomy interests, I argue that current political efforts should be directed toward modifying ableist environments rather than employing genetic technologies to avoid disability or enhance capacity. The article concludes by drawing from disability justice scholarship to make the case that the “right to an open future” should be understood as the “right to an accessible future,” one wherein society is “open” to people with diverse genetic traits and capacities
Autonomy · Biology · CRISPR · Disability studies · Economic Justice · Environmental ethics · Gene · Genome editing · Political science · Politics · Scholarship · Sociology · Transhumanism · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Law · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Genetics
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |