Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion

Public debate over the use of techniques that result in heritable changes to human germ cells (i.e., sperm and ova), called germ-cell gene interventions, lags far behind the development of such therapies. Such a debate is particularly needed now because the first steps in somatic-cell, or non-herita...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic Medicine 2001-01, Vol.76 (1), p.32-38
Hauptverfasser: Szebik, I, Glass, K C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 38
container_issue 1
container_start_page 32
container_title Academic Medicine
container_volume 76
creator Szebik, I
Glass, K C
description Public debate over the use of techniques that result in heritable changes to human germ cells (i.e., sperm and ova), called germ-cell gene interventions, lags far behind the development of such therapies. Such a debate is particularly needed now because the first steps in somatic-cell, or non-heritable, gene therapy have taken place and may accelerate the beginning of germ-cell gene therapy trials. Because germ-cell therapy affects future generations, its moral status differs considerably from that of somatic-cell therapy. To stimulate and inform public discussion, the authors review the major ethical arguments for and against germ-cell therapy that are found in the literature. (These arguments include the dangers of "playing God," of moving on the "slippery slope" to germ-cell manipulations for enhancement rather than therapy, and of causing irreversible changes to the genomes of future generations.) They demonstrate that these arguments do not apply uniquely to such therapy, since most of the properties of germ-cell therapy are present in other medical interventions or elsewhere in social interactions. For example, there are many examples of human activities that are irreversible and have effects on future generations. However, this lack of uniqueness does not necessarily imply that the moral status of germ-cell gene therapy is unique, or that it should be banned forever. The public, and especially health policymakers, researchers, and clinicians, must reflect on and discuss the issues outlined in this article before efforts are made to introduce changes into the germ cells of human beings.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00001888-200101000-00009
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70567491</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70567491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b61ce7a765096b20747144caa969e5cefd24f07dd6308c83a906d9fd40ca7b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFUMtOwzAQ9AFES-EXkE_cAuvEsWNuqCoPqYILnK2NHzQoaYKdHPr3uLTA7mGk0czuaAihDG4YKHkLaVhVVVmeMC1AtqfUCZkz4JDlnIsZOY_xM7FClsUZmTHGSs4UzMnLatw0BlvaxDi5SHtPN1OHW_rhQpcZ17Z03LiAw-6OIh2CGzDg2PRb6vtAh6luG0NtE80UY2IvyKnHNrrLIy7I-8PqbfmUrV8fn5f368zkpRgzUQtmnEQpSlCizkFyyTg3iEooVxrnbc49SGtFAZWpClQgrPKWg0FZy2JBrg93h9B_pdyj7lKGlBa3rp-illAKyRVLwuogNKGPMTivh9B0GHaagd73p3_703_9_VAqWa-OP6a6c_bfeCyv-AbkYG0r</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70567491</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Szebik, I ; Glass, K C</creator><creatorcontrib>Szebik, I ; Glass, K C</creatorcontrib><description>Public debate over the use of techniques that result in heritable changes to human germ cells (i.e., sperm and ova), called germ-cell gene interventions, lags far behind the development of such therapies. Such a debate is particularly needed now because the first steps in somatic-cell, or non-heritable, gene therapy have taken place and may accelerate the beginning of germ-cell gene therapy trials. Because germ-cell therapy affects future generations, its moral status differs considerably from that of somatic-cell therapy. To stimulate and inform public discussion, the authors review the major ethical arguments for and against germ-cell therapy that are found in the literature. (These arguments include the dangers of "playing God," of moving on the "slippery slope" to germ-cell manipulations for enhancement rather than therapy, and of causing irreversible changes to the genomes of future generations.) They demonstrate that these arguments do not apply uniquely to such therapy, since most of the properties of germ-cell therapy are present in other medical interventions or elsewhere in social interactions. For example, there are many examples of human activities that are irreversible and have effects on future generations. However, this lack of uniqueness does not necessarily imply that the moral status of germ-cell gene therapy is unique, or that it should be banned forever. The public, and especially health policymakers, researchers, and clinicians, must reflect on and discuss the issues outlined in this article before efforts are made to introduce changes into the germ cells of human beings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-2446</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200101000-00009</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11154190</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Ethics, Medical ; Gene Pool ; Genetic Engineering ; Genetic Therapy - adverse effects ; Germ Cells ; Humans</subject><ispartof>Academic Medicine, 2001-01, Vol.76 (1), p.32-38</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b61ce7a765096b20747144caa969e5cefd24f07dd6308c83a906d9fd40ca7b73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11154190$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Szebik, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glass, K C</creatorcontrib><title>Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion</title><title>Academic Medicine</title><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><description>Public debate over the use of techniques that result in heritable changes to human germ cells (i.e., sperm and ova), called germ-cell gene interventions, lags far behind the development of such therapies. Such a debate is particularly needed now because the first steps in somatic-cell, or non-heritable, gene therapy have taken place and may accelerate the beginning of germ-cell gene therapy trials. Because germ-cell therapy affects future generations, its moral status differs considerably from that of somatic-cell therapy. To stimulate and inform public discussion, the authors review the major ethical arguments for and against germ-cell therapy that are found in the literature. (These arguments include the dangers of "playing God," of moving on the "slippery slope" to germ-cell manipulations for enhancement rather than therapy, and of causing irreversible changes to the genomes of future generations.) They demonstrate that these arguments do not apply uniquely to such therapy, since most of the properties of germ-cell therapy are present in other medical interventions or elsewhere in social interactions. For example, there are many examples of human activities that are irreversible and have effects on future generations. However, this lack of uniqueness does not necessarily imply that the moral status of germ-cell gene therapy is unique, or that it should be banned forever. The public, and especially health policymakers, researchers, and clinicians, must reflect on and discuss the issues outlined in this article before efforts are made to introduce changes into the germ cells of human beings.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Ethics, Medical</subject><subject>Gene Pool</subject><subject>Genetic Engineering</subject><subject>Genetic Therapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Germ Cells</subject><subject>Humans</subject><issn>1040-2446</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFUMtOwzAQ9AFES-EXkE_cAuvEsWNuqCoPqYILnK2NHzQoaYKdHPr3uLTA7mGk0czuaAihDG4YKHkLaVhVVVmeMC1AtqfUCZkz4JDlnIsZOY_xM7FClsUZmTHGSs4UzMnLatw0BlvaxDi5SHtPN1OHW_rhQpcZ17Z03LiAw-6OIh2CGzDg2PRb6vtAh6luG0NtE80UY2IvyKnHNrrLIy7I-8PqbfmUrV8fn5f368zkpRgzUQtmnEQpSlCizkFyyTg3iEooVxrnbc49SGtFAZWpClQgrPKWg0FZy2JBrg93h9B_pdyj7lKGlBa3rp-illAKyRVLwuogNKGPMTivh9B0GHaagd73p3_703_9_VAqWa-OP6a6c_bfeCyv-AbkYG0r</recordid><startdate>200101</startdate><enddate>200101</enddate><creator>Szebik, I</creator><creator>Glass, K C</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200101</creationdate><title>Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion</title><author>Szebik, I ; Glass, K C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-6b61ce7a765096b20747144caa969e5cefd24f07dd6308c83a906d9fd40ca7b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Ethics, Medical</topic><topic>Gene Pool</topic><topic>Genetic Engineering</topic><topic>Genetic Therapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Germ Cells</topic><topic>Humans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Szebik, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glass, K C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Szebik, I</au><au>Glass, K C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion</atitle><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><date>2001-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>32</spage><epage>38</epage><pages>32-38</pages><issn>1040-2446</issn><abstract>Public debate over the use of techniques that result in heritable changes to human germ cells (i.e., sperm and ova), called germ-cell gene interventions, lags far behind the development of such therapies. Such a debate is particularly needed now because the first steps in somatic-cell, or non-heritable, gene therapy have taken place and may accelerate the beginning of germ-cell gene therapy trials. Because germ-cell therapy affects future generations, its moral status differs considerably from that of somatic-cell therapy. To stimulate and inform public discussion, the authors review the major ethical arguments for and against germ-cell therapy that are found in the literature. (These arguments include the dangers of "playing God," of moving on the "slippery slope" to germ-cell manipulations for enhancement rather than therapy, and of causing irreversible changes to the genomes of future generations.) They demonstrate that these arguments do not apply uniquely to such therapy, since most of the properties of germ-cell therapy are present in other medical interventions or elsewhere in social interactions. For example, there are many examples of human activities that are irreversible and have effects on future generations. However, this lack of uniqueness does not necessarily imply that the moral status of germ-cell gene therapy is unique, or that it should be banned forever. The public, and especially health policymakers, researchers, and clinicians, must reflect on and discuss the issues outlined in this article before efforts are made to introduce changes into the germ cells of human beings.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>11154190</pmid><doi>10.1097/00001888-200101000-00009</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-2446
ispartof Academic Medicine, 2001-01, Vol.76 (1), p.32-38
issn 1040-2446
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70567491
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Bioethics
Ethics, Medical
Gene Pool
Genetic Engineering
Genetic Therapy - adverse effects
Germ Cells
Humans
title Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T15%3A21%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ethical%20issues%20of%20human%20germ-cell%20therapy:%20a%20preparation%20for%20public%20discussion&rft.jtitle=Academic%20Medicine&rft.au=Szebik,%20I&rft.date=2001-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=32&rft.epage=38&rft.pages=32-38&rft.issn=1040-2446&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00001888-200101000-00009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70567491%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70567491&rft_id=info:pmid/11154190&rfr_iscdi=true