Revise

Running head: BIOETHICAL DILEMMA 2

Research Paper; Bioethical Dilemma

Part 1: What is the ethical dilemma?

A. Briefly describe the situation. Include only essential and relevant information.

In November 2018, the global community was shocked by the revelation that a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, had conducted a controversial experiment involving the genetic modification of twin girls. Using CRISPR technology, He Jiankui aimed to disable the CCR5 gene in the embryos, a gene associated with HIV infection risk. The intention behind this experiment was to make the twins immune to HIV, a potentially life-threatening disease. While this may appear as a noble goal, the experiment raised significant ethical concerns. The birth of these genetically modified twins sparked a global ethical dilemma, as it brought to the forefront the questions of whether scientists should be allowed to manipulate the human genome and what limits, if any, should be imposed on such genetic editing.

B. State the ethical conflict, using one moral framework or principle of bioethics.

The ethical conflict in this situation revolves around the principle of non-maleficence in bioethics. Non-maleficence, a fundamental principle in medical ethics, asserts that medical professionals and researchers have an ethical obligation to "do no harm" and to minimize harm when conducting medical interventions. In the case of He Jiankui's genetic modification experiment on the twin girls, the ethical dilemma arises from concerns about the potential unintended harms that could result from genetic editing, especially in the context of the children's cognitive and intellectual development. The central question is whether this experiment, conducted with the goal of preventing HIV, violated the principle of non-maleficence by exposing the twins to unforeseen risks and potential harm.

Part 2: What resolutions to the dilemma do other people suggest?

A. Explain the resolution proposed by one author in a peer-reviewed journal article. What is the morally right thing to do in situations like this one, according to that author?

One author, Victor L. Raposo, in the peer-reviewed article "The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science," suggests that the morally right thing to do in the situation involving He Jiankui's genetic modification of the twin girls is to condemn the experiment as ethically unacceptable. He's experiment, which entailed turning off the CCR5 gene in the embryos in order to prevent HIV, was a leap of faith in science motivated by a desire for scientific achievement without giving enough thought to the ethical and potential risks involved (Raposo, 2019). Any potential advantages of CCR5 gene modification are outweighed by the potential risks, which include unexpected cognitive and intellectual changes (Raposo, 2019). He highlights that scientific study, especially in the area of genetic editing, requires strict respect to established ethical principles and ethical scrutiny. Raposo contends that stopping and denouncing studies such as He's that put scientific advancement ahead of morality is the morally correct thing to do.

B. Optional: Explain a different resolution proposed by a second author. This could be an author from a peer-reviewed article, the textbook, or another source (book, interview, fellow student in the class, discussion with someone you know). Cite.

While there are multiple perspectives on this issue, let's consider a resolution proposed by another author, Julian Savulescu, a prominent bioethicist. In his work, Savulescu argues that the morally right thing to do in situations like the genetic editing of the twin girls could be a more nuanced approach. Rather than just denouncing, He contends that it is crucial to carefully examine the moral precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Savulescu stresses the need to strike a balance between scientific advancement and ethical protections, while acknowledging that genetic editing may have advantages in the future, such as the ability to prevent fatal diseases. He suggests a more transparent and regulated strategy in which genetic editing is permitted but closely supervised to guarantee that it complies with accepted moral standards and does not jeopardize the welfare of those engaged. Savulescu's position is more permissive of genetic editing, but also emphasizes the necessity for strict control and observance of bioethical guidelines.

Part 3: What resolution to the dilemma do you think is the morally correct one?

A. What is the morally right thing to do in the situation, according to the Moral Framework or Principle you have chosen? Describe the resolution/right action. The resolution you propose might agree with one of the authors you discuss. Or you might offer a new resolution. This is the paper’s conclusion.

In this ethical dilemma, using the Moral Framework of Non-Maleficence, I propose that the morally correct action is to condemn He Jiankui's genetic modification experiment on the twin girls. This is in line with the viewpoint of Victor L. Raposo (Raposo, 2019), who also opposed this experiment. A cornerstone of medical ethics, non-maleficence highlights the need to "do no harm" and to reduce harm when performing medical procedures. Beyond the main objective of HIV prevention, He Jiankui's trial exposed the twin girls to unanticipated hazards, such as possible cognitive and intellectual abnormalities (Raposo, 2019). The experiment's preference for scientific advancement over the possible risks to the children engaged constitutes a violation of the fundamental tenet of non-maleficence.

B. State the reasons why this is the morally correct resolution to the dilemma by using the Moral Framework or Principle you described in Part 1. The goal here is to make a valid argument.

The resolution of condemning the genetic modification experiment is supported by the non-maleficence principle, as it reflects the ethical duty to avoid causing harm and to minimize harm when conducting medical interventions. He Jiankui's experiment lacked a clear therapeutic goal and exposed the twin girls to the risks associated with genetic editing, including cognitive and intellectual alterations (Raposo, 2019). Such potential harms go beyond the primary goal of preventing HIV infection. Non-Maleficence requires that medical interventions prioritize the well-being and safety of individuals and society, and in this case, the experiment did not meet this ethical standard.

The lack of transparency and ethical oversight in the experiment violates the principle of Non-Maleficence, as it failed to adhere to established ethical norms for human testing. In order to limit potential harm to participants and respect the ethical values of beneficence and autonomy, medical research using genetic editing must adhere to strict ethical norms (Savulescu, 2018). Thus, the morally right course of action is to denounce such research and give the ethical protections and welfare of human’s top priority, in light of the principle of non-maleficence and the possible harms associated with the genetic editing experiment.

C. Consider an objection. That means, state why someone might think one of your reasons is false, and then explain why it is not false.

An objection to this perspective could be that genetic editing holds great promise in preventing life-threatening diseases, like HIV. Some might argue that the potential benefits, in terms of saving lives and improving public health, outweigh the potential risks and uncertainties associated with genetic editing. They may contend that condemning all genetic editing experiments is overly cautious and could hinder scientific progress.

In response, it's critical to recognize that, despite the potential advantages of genetic editing, these advantages must be weighed against the moral precept of non-maleficence. The objection ignores the fact that non-maleficence necessitates a thorough ethical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of any medical procedures. Significant ethical issues are raised by the unpredictability and unintended repercussions of DNA editing, particularly in embryos. The proposed resolution supports a more careful and regulated approach, in line with the concept of non-maleficence, rather than condemning all forms of genetic editing. In order to guarantee that genetic editing interventions prioritize both scientific innovation and the safety and well-being of those involved, it highlights the necessity of strict oversight and ethical measures.

Part 4: What further information could convince you to change your mind?

In this ethical dilemma surrounding genetic editing, there are several factors and additional information that could potentially lead me to reconsider my proposed resolution.

First, additional long-term scientific data on the outcomes of genetic editing in human embryos and the health and well-being of the modified individuals is essential. The long-term impacts of genetic editing are now poorly supported by empirical data, particularly when it comes to intellectual and cognitive development (Savulescu, 2018). Future studies may support a more permissive attitude toward genetic editing if they show conclusively that the procedure can be carried out with little risk and no negative consequences for the participants. I would be willing to reevaluate my stance in such a situation.

Second, it would be crucial to have clear and comprehensive ethical guidelines and regulations for genetic editing. The ethical precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be included in these guidelines in addition to the technical components of genetic editing (Savulescu, 2018). Some of the ethical issues may be allayed if a solid structure is in place to guarantee that genetic editing interventions follow moral guidelines and put people's safety and well-being first. My position might change as a result of this.

Third, the collective input and consensus of the broader scientific and ethical community would be influential in shaping my perspective. If the scientific and bioethical communities engage in extensive deliberations and arrive at a consensus that genetic editing can be conducted safely, ethically, and with adequate safeguards, it would carry significant weight. This agreement might give genetic editing a stronger basis for consideration as a practical and morally acceptable solution.

My opinion will be greatly influenced by ongoing ethical arguments and public debates about genetic editing. A continuous assessment of genetic editing procedures should take into account potential objections, concerns, and alternative viewpoints, all of which can be found in the public debate and ethical opinion.

My suggested resolution would need to be reexamined in light of strong scientific data, clear ethical standards, agreement within the scientific and ethical communities, and continued public discussion. If these arguments are strong enough, I might change my mind about the moral implications of human genetic editing.

Bibliography

Baylis, F. (2017). The normalization of 'saviour siblings'? A comment on the saviour sibling case of "Jamie and Daniel." Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(9), 592-596.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Caplan, A. L. (2015). Gene Editing: What We Know (and What We Don't). JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(17), 1721-1722.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects.pdf

Cyranoski, D. (2018). CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy critics. Nature, 564(7734), 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07640-1

Harris, J. (2015). Editing the Human Genome. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), 115(3pt3), 211-235.

Munson, R., Lague, I. (2016). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics. Cengage Learning.

Raposo, V. L. (2019). The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science. Gene Editing: What We Know (and What We Don't). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724388/

Running head: BIOETHICAL DILEMMA 2

Research Paper; Bioethical Dilemma

Part 1: What is the ethical dilemma?

A. Briefly describe the situation. Include only essential and relevant information.

In November 2018, the global community was shocked by the revelation that a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, had conducted a controversial experiment involving the genetic modification of twin girls. Using CRISPR technology, He Jiankui aimed to disable the CCR5 gene in the embryos, a gene associated with HIV infection risk. The intention behind this experiment was to make the twins immune to HIV, a potentially life-threatening disease. While this may appear as a noble goal, the experiment raised significant ethical concerns. The birth of these genetically modified twins sparked a global ethical dilemma, as it brought to the forefront the questions of whether scientists should be allowed to manipulate the human genome and what limits, if any, should be imposed on such genetic editing.

B. State the ethical conflict, using one moral framework or principle of bioethics.

The ethical conflict in this situation revolves around the principle of non-maleficence in bioethics. Non-maleficence, a fundamental principle in medical ethics, asserts that medical professionals and researchers have an ethical obligation to "do no harm" and to minimize harm when conducting medical interventions. In the case of He Jiankui's genetic modification experiment on the twin girls, the ethical dilemma arises from concerns about the potential unintended harms that could result from genetic editing, especially in the context of the children's cognitive and intellectual development. The central question is whether this experiment, conducted with the goal of preventing HIV, violated the principle of non-maleficence by exposing the twins to unforeseen risks and potential harm.

Part 2: What resolutions to the dilemma do other people suggest?

A. Explain the resolution proposed by one author in a peer-reviewed journal article. What is the morally right thing to do in situations like this one, according to that author?

One author, Victor L. Raposo, in the peer-reviewed article "The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science," suggests that the morally right thing to do in the situation involving He Jiankui's genetic modification of the twin girls is to condemn the experiment as ethically unacceptable. He's experiment, which entailed turning off the CCR5 gene in the embryos in order to prevent HIV, was a leap of faith in science motivated by a desire for scientific achievement without giving enough thought to the ethical and potential risks involved (Raposo, 2019). Any potential advantages of CCR5 gene modification are outweighed by the potential risks, which include unexpected cognitive and intellectual changes (Raposo, 2019). He highlights that scientific study, especially in the area of genetic editing, requires strict respect to established ethical principles and ethical scrutiny. Raposo contends that stopping and denouncing studies such as He's that put scientific advancement ahead of morality is the morally correct thing to do.

B. Optional: Explain a different resolution proposed by a second author. This could be an author from a peer-reviewed article, the textbook, or another source (book, interview, fellow student in the class, discussion with someone you know). Cite.

While there are multiple perspectives on this issue, let's consider a resolution proposed by another author, Julian Savulescu, a prominent bioethicist. In his work, Savulescu argues that the morally right thing to do in situations like the genetic editing of the twin girls could be a more nuanced approach. Rather than just denouncing, He contends that it is crucial to carefully examine the moral precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Savulescu stresses the need to strike a balance between scientific advancement and ethical protections, while acknowledging that genetic editing may have advantages in the future, such as the ability to prevent fatal diseases. He suggests a more transparent and regulated strategy in which genetic editing is permitted but closely supervised to guarantee that it complies with accepted moral standards and does not jeopardize the welfare of those engaged. Savulescu's position is more permissive of genetic editing, but also emphasizes the necessity for strict control and observance of bioethical guidelines.

Part 3: What resolution to the dilemma do you think is the morally correct one?

A. What is the morally right thing to do in the situation, according to the Moral Framework or Principle you have chosen? Describe the resolution/right action. The resolution you propose might agree with one of the authors you discuss. Or you might offer a new resolution. This is the paper’s conclusion.

In this ethical dilemma, using the Moral Framework of Non-Maleficence, I propose that the morally correct action is to condemn He Jiankui's genetic modification experiment on the twin girls. This is in line with the viewpoint of Victor L. Raposo (Raposo, 2019), who also opposed this experiment. A cornerstone of medical ethics, non-maleficence highlights the need to "do no harm" and to reduce harm when performing medical procedures. Beyond the main objective of HIV prevention, He Jiankui's trial exposed the twin girls to unanticipated hazards, such as possible cognitive and intellectual abnormalities (Raposo, 2019). The experiment's preference for scientific advancement over the possible risks to the children engaged constitutes a violation of the fundamental tenet of non-maleficence.

B. State the reasons why this is the morally correct resolution to the dilemma by using the Moral Framework or Principle you described in Part 1. The goal here is to make a valid argument.

The resolution of condemning the genetic modification experiment is supported by the non-maleficence principle, as it reflects the ethical duty to avoid causing harm and to minimize harm when conducting medical interventions. He Jiankui's experiment lacked a clear therapeutic goal and exposed the twin girls to the risks associated with genetic editing, including cognitive and intellectual alterations (Raposo, 2019). Such potential harms go beyond the primary goal of preventing HIV infection. Non-Maleficence requires that medical interventions prioritize the well-being and safety of individuals and society, and in this case, the experiment did not meet this ethical standard.

The lack of transparency and ethical oversight in the experiment violates the principle of Non-Maleficence, as it failed to adhere to established ethical norms for human testing. In order to limit potential harm to participants and respect the ethical values of beneficence and autonomy, medical research using genetic editing must adhere to strict ethical norms (Savulescu, 2018). Thus, the morally right course of action is to denounce such research and give the ethical protections and welfare of human’s top priority, in light of the principle of non-maleficence and the possible harms associated with the genetic editing experiment.

C. Consider an objection. That means, state why someone might think one of your reasons is false, and then explain why it is not false.

An objection to this perspective could be that genetic editing holds great promise in preventing life-threatening diseases, like HIV. Some might argue that the potential benefits, in terms of saving lives and improving public health, outweigh the potential risks and uncertainties associated with genetic editing. They may contend that condemning all genetic editing experiments is overly cautious and could hinder scientific progress.

In response, it's critical to recognize that, despite the potential advantages of genetic editing, these advantages must be weighed against the moral precept of non-maleficence. The objection ignores the fact that non-maleficence necessitates a thorough ethical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of any medical procedures. Significant ethical issues are raised by the unpredictability and unintended repercussions of DNA editing, particularly in embryos. The proposed resolution supports a more careful and regulated approach, in line with the concept of non-maleficence, rather than condemning all forms of genetic editing. In order to guarantee that genetic editing interventions prioritize both scientific innovation and the safety and well-being of those involved, it highlights the necessity of strict oversight and ethical measures.

Part 4: What further information could convince you to change your mind?

In this ethical dilemma surrounding genetic editing, there are several factors and additional information that could potentially lead me to reconsider my proposed resolution.

First, additional long-term scientific data on the outcomes of genetic editing in human embryos and the health and well-being of the modified individuals is essential. The long-term impacts of genetic editing are now poorly supported by empirical data, particularly when it comes to intellectual and cognitive development (Savulescu, 2018). Future studies may support a more permissive attitude toward genetic editing if they show conclusively that the procedure can be carried out with little risk and no negative consequences for the participants. I would be willing to reevaluate my stance in such a situation.

Second, it would be crucial to have clear and comprehensive ethical guidelines and regulations for genetic editing. The ethical precepts of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be included in these guidelines in addition to the technical components of genetic editing (Savulescu, 2018). Some of the ethical issues may be allayed if a solid structure is in place to guarantee that genetic editing interventions follow moral guidelines and put people's safety and well-being first. My position might change as a result of this.

Third, the collective input and consensus of the broader scientific and ethical community would be influential in shaping my perspective. If the scientific and bioethical communities engage in extensive deliberations and arrive at a consensus that genetic editing can be conducted safely, ethically, and with adequate safeguards, it would carry significant weight. This agreement might give genetic editing a stronger basis for consideration as a practical and morally acceptable solution.

My opinion will be greatly influenced by ongoing ethical arguments and public debates about genetic editing. A continuous assessment of genetic editing procedures should take into account potential objections, concerns, and alternative viewpoints, all of which can be found in the public debate and ethical opinion.

My suggested resolution would need to be reexamined in light of strong scientific data, clear ethical standards, agreement within the scientific and ethical communities, and continued public discussion. If these arguments are strong enough, I might change my mind about the moral implications of human genetic editing.

Bibliography

Baylis, F. (2017). The normalization of 'saviour siblings'? A comment on the saviour sibling case of "Jamie and Daniel." Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(9), 592-596.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Caplan, A. L. (2015). Gene Editing: What We Know (and What We Don't). JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(17), 1721-1722.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects.pdf

Cyranoski, D. (2018). CRISPR-baby scientist fails to satisfy critics. Nature, 564(7734), 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07640-1

Harris, J. (2015). Editing the Human Genome. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), 115(3pt3), 211-235.

Munson, R., Lague, I. (2016). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics. Cengage Learning.

Raposo, V. L. (2019). The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science. Gene Editing: What We Know (and What We Don't). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724388/