Toward Public Bioethics?
This issue of the Hastings Center Report (May-June 2017) features a couple of interesting takes on the governance challenges of emerging technologies. In an essay on the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report published this February on human germ-line gene editing, Eric Juen...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2017
|
| In: |
The Hastings Center report
Year: 2017, Volume: 47, Issue: 3, Pages: 2 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | This issue of the Hastings Center Report (May-June 2017) features a couple of interesting takes on the governance challenges of emerging technologies. In an essay on the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report published this February on human germ-line gene editing, Eric Juengst, a philosopher at the University of North Carolina, argues that the NASEM committee did not manage to rethink the rules. Juengst reaches what he calls an “eccentric conclusion”: “The committee's 2017 consensus report has been widely interpreted as ‘opening the door’ to inheritable human genetic modification and holding a line against enhancement interventions. But on a close reading it does neither.” In the column Policy and Politics, Sarah Chan, a chancellor's fellow at the University of Edinburgh, discusses the emerging science of “organoids,” “embryoids,” and “synthetic human entities with embryo-like features” and calls for a sustained effort to rethink the rules for embryo research. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1552-146X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hastings Center, The Hastings Center report
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1002/hast.696 |
