Genetics

Humane Evolution

by Anders Sandberg
May 19, 2008

Professor John Harris wonders Who’s afraid
of a synthetic human? in the Times. He argues we should support
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill because it will help us develop
effective therapies and enhance ourselves. Science is about bettering our lot,
after all. In particular, he says, synthetic biology may help us avoid going
extinct due to our vulnerabilities and instead enable us to choose (or become)
our successors as a species.

Many people become confused by the
possibility of a posthuman future. The traditional view of the future is a
stark one: either humanity extinct, or humans roughly as they are today. The
posthuman options would be that we either change ourselves so radically that
the resulting species is so fundamentally different from humanity that we
would regard it as something entirely new, or that we create some kind of independent
beings that continue our culture even as traditional humanity retires from the
forefront (hopefully as proud parents of the new beings). The range of possible
options within these scenarios is endless, inviting equally endless and loud
speculation. That tends to distract from the key message of Harris’ essay: we
are leaving the realm of natural evolution and entering what he calls a realm
of enhancement evolution.

The Ethics of ‘Human Admixed Embryos’: Concerns and Responses

by Julian Savulescu
May 19, 2008

By Loane Skene, Professor of Law, University of Melbourne and Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics and Director Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Bill, currently before the UK Parliament, will, if passed, permit HFEA to license the creation for research of embryos that combine human and animal genetic material (called, in the Bill, ‘human admixed embryos’). These embryos include cybrids which are formed by inserting the nucleus of a human body cell into an animal egg that has had its nucleus removed. Cybrids would produce embryonic stem cells that are 99.9% human. The Bill would also permit other types of embryos to be formed from human and animal genetic material that would be up to half animal. This post explains why scientists want to create human admixed embryos. It then outlines some ethical concerns about the creation of these embryos and responses that may be made to those concerns.

Looking for Biopolitical Trouble

by Anders Sandberg
May 14, 2008

Researchers at Cornell university have
developed a genetically modified human embryo expressing a green fluorescent
protein. This is a technology already demonstrated
in animals (and plants), including monkeys. But the news that it had been done to a
human embryo has stirred up reactions worrying about designer babies. Are we
already in a brave new world of designer babies? And how should we handle the biopolitical debate?

Genetic discrimination and the future of health insurance

by Tom Douglas
May 1, 2008

The US Congress today passed legislation banning the use of genetic information by insurance companies, unions and employers. As Dominic Wilkinson noted in his post on 26 April, this legislation might have interesting implications for professional sport. The reform also raises questions about the future of insurance markets.

Football screens and genes: Should genetic discrimination in sport be banned?

by Dominic Wilkinson
April 26, 2008

In the Guardian this weekend, it is reported that at least one UK football club has been contemplating using genetic tests to screen potential recruits,in the hope of identifying future star players. This comes only one day after legislation was passed in the US Senate prohibiting insurance companies and employers from using genetic information in hiring or insurance decisions.

« Previous
1
…
7
8
9