Practical Ethics

My Genes, not a Doctor's

California has sent cease-and-desist letters to firms offering Web gene tests to consumers. The legal reason is that California law requires a licenced physician to order any lab tests. This follows from a similar crackdown in New York. Wired responds by top 10 reasons that regulators should not hinder genetic testing. Is there any good reason to limit public access to genetic testing besides protecting incumbents and gatekeepers?

Same species, different needs: could 'genes for' improve the way we treat animals?

The New Scientist recently reviewed a variety of studies showing that many traits often supposed unique to humans are in fact shared by animals. There is evidence that apes, dolphins, songbirds, elephants, and monkeys share with humans some of the most important aspects of behaviour associated with speech; killer whales have distinct cultural groups; great apes and some monkeys have a degree of understanding of the minds of others, enabling them to deceive; chimpanzees, gorillas, and crows use tools; and there is suggestive evidence that elephants, magpies, baboons, whales, and chimpanzees demonstrate emotional behaviour, and that monkeys and rats are capable of drawing primitive moral distinctions.

Claims that animals have capacities usually thought unique to humans are controversial, and those who make them are often accused of anthropomorphising animal behaviour. Plausibly, there is often more to such accusations than concern for explanatory parsimony. As humans, we profit from using animals—for food, research, sport, and so on—in ways that we would not use other humans, and suggestions that animals are more like humans than we usually suppose place an unwelcome demand on society to rethink its ethical stance towards animals. This suggests that a clear division between humans and other species is important to us in justifying the discrepancies between what we view as ethical treatment of other humans and what we view as ethical treatment of non-human animals. Pragmatically speaking, if we humans wish to retain a privileged moral status, and if our privileged moral status is at least partly due to our being different to other animals in certain important (usually biologically-based) respects, then it is in our interests to resist attempts to draw similarities between humans and other animals.

HFEA and Regulating Reproduction:Triumph for Rationality and Victory for Secular Ethics

MPs voted on Tuesday on two of the most controversial issues surrounding reproduction- the provision of IVF treatment, and the availability of legal abortion. Under the new laws, IVF clinics will no longer have a legal requirement to consider the need for a father, but will instead be asked to ensure provision of 'supportive parenting', removing any barrier to single women and lesbian couples conceiving through the treatment. In a separate amendment, MPs were asked to consider the legal time limit on abortion, which currently stands at 24 weeks. Given the option to reduce this limit to 22, 20 or even just 12 weeks, MPs voted by a comfortable majority to stick with the status quo. 

The UK is now at the forefront of rational reform to legislation governing reproduction and research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has now approved the creation of human admixed embryos, with important implications for scientific advance.

Blog on Admixed Embryos
Savulescu, J., The Case for Creating Human -Non Human Cell Lines, Bioethics Forum
Human Enhancement papers, media and other resources for free download

It has also reformed the regulation of reproduction in a thoroughly sensible manner.

The New Law on Admixed Embryos and the Genetic Heritage of the Living Kingdom

Scientists in the US recently created a fluorescent human embryo. This was achieved by inserting a gene for green fluorescent protein. This shows that it is possible to successfully transfer a gene from a non-human animal to a human and for that gene to express its function. Other animal studies have shown that such gene transfer is both safe and effective, creating super animals, such as mice with colour-vision derived from human genes transferred.

Humane Evolution

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 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

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

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?

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.