Standard

After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies. / Sand, Martin; Bredenoord, Annelien L.; Jongsma, Karin R.

In: European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 27, 2019, p. 1621-1624.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleScientificpeer-review

Harvard

Sand, M, Bredenoord, AL & Jongsma, KR 2019, 'After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies' European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 27, pp. 1621-1624. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5

APA

Sand, M., Bredenoord, A. L., & Jongsma, K. R. (2019). After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies. European Journal of Human Genetics, 27, 1621-1624. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5

Vancouver

Sand M, Bredenoord AL, Jongsma KR. After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2019;27:1621-1624. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5

Author

Sand, Martin ; Bredenoord, Annelien L. ; Jongsma, Karin R. / After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies. In: European Journal of Human Genetics. 2019 ; Vol. 27. pp. 1621-1624.

BibTeX

@article{970c4f556dde4b92b221a0e71f5d556e,
title = "After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies",
abstract = "The world has been startled by the irresponsible experiment of He Jiankui, who used CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos. In this viewpoint, we explore the phenomenon of moral luck in medicine and its bearing on the limits of simple judgements of the kind “everything that ends well is well” or “someone broke the rules, and is therefore blameworthy”. The risks involved in scientific and medical experiments are often brushed aside, when they turn out well. The clinical application of CRISPR in the human germline is presently too risky to be used without more preclinical research and unacceptable without broader societal support, which justifies the call for a moratorium by the scientific community. However, such policies do not determine how to assess cases, where someone was willing to take such risks beyond all rules, guidelines and regulation and succeeds. The policies including the proposed moratorium are as unanimous about the undesirability of current applications of clinical germline editing as they are about the potential importance of this research. What if this potential is achieved by breaking the rules? The paradox of moral luck impinges on this debate. In our analysis, we rebut simplified judgments and advocate a more balanced view on the relation between moral responsibility and the societal consequences of medicine.",
author = "Martin Sand and Bredenoord, {Annelien L.} and Jongsma, {Karin R.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "1621--1624",
journal = "European Journal of Human Genetics",
issn = "1018-4813",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - After the fact—the case of CRISPR babies

AU - Sand, Martin

AU - Bredenoord, Annelien L.

AU - Jongsma, Karin R.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The world has been startled by the irresponsible experiment of He Jiankui, who used CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos. In this viewpoint, we explore the phenomenon of moral luck in medicine and its bearing on the limits of simple judgements of the kind “everything that ends well is well” or “someone broke the rules, and is therefore blameworthy”. The risks involved in scientific and medical experiments are often brushed aside, when they turn out well. The clinical application of CRISPR in the human germline is presently too risky to be used without more preclinical research and unacceptable without broader societal support, which justifies the call for a moratorium by the scientific community. However, such policies do not determine how to assess cases, where someone was willing to take such risks beyond all rules, guidelines and regulation and succeeds. The policies including the proposed moratorium are as unanimous about the undesirability of current applications of clinical germline editing as they are about the potential importance of this research. What if this potential is achieved by breaking the rules? The paradox of moral luck impinges on this debate. In our analysis, we rebut simplified judgments and advocate a more balanced view on the relation between moral responsibility and the societal consequences of medicine.

AB - The world has been startled by the irresponsible experiment of He Jiankui, who used CRISPR to genetically modify human embryos. In this viewpoint, we explore the phenomenon of moral luck in medicine and its bearing on the limits of simple judgements of the kind “everything that ends well is well” or “someone broke the rules, and is therefore blameworthy”. The risks involved in scientific and medical experiments are often brushed aside, when they turn out well. The clinical application of CRISPR in the human germline is presently too risky to be used without more preclinical research and unacceptable without broader societal support, which justifies the call for a moratorium by the scientific community. However, such policies do not determine how to assess cases, where someone was willing to take such risks beyond all rules, guidelines and regulation and succeeds. The policies including the proposed moratorium are as unanimous about the undesirability of current applications of clinical germline editing as they are about the potential importance of this research. What if this potential is achieved by breaking the rules? The paradox of moral luck impinges on this debate. In our analysis, we rebut simplified judgments and advocate a more balanced view on the relation between moral responsibility and the societal consequences of medicine.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068215873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5

DO - 10.1038/s41431-019-0459-5

M3 - Review article

VL - 27

SP - 1621

EP - 1624

JO - European Journal of Human Genetics

T2 - European Journal of Human Genetics

JF - European Journal of Human Genetics

SN - 1018-4813

ER -

ID: 56884107