Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans

, The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhance...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Loftis, J. Robert (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 2005
In: Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
Year: 2005, Volume: 15, Issue: 1, Pages: 57-76
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 182698710X
003 DE-627
005 20221214052548.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221214s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1353/ken.2005.0005  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)182698710X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP182698710X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Loftis, J. Robert  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans 
264 1 |c 2005 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a , The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Kennedy Institute of Ethics  |t Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal  |d Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1991  |g 15(2005), 1, Seite 57-76  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320481840  |w (DE-600)2009887-X  |w (DE-576)266818668  |x 1086-3249  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:15  |g year:2005  |g number:1  |g pages:57-76 
856 |u https://philpapers.org/archive/LOFGEO.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH title and first author match)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2005.0005  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/180771  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4230897979 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 182698710X 
LOK |0 005 20221214052548 
LOK |0 008 221214||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-05#2B2BD69C5EF7E7F9F2DB2A268A22E0FB09FA524C 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw