Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome Editing for Longer Lives: The Problem of Loneliness

Wareham, C. S.·2020·Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
DOI 10.1007/s11673-020-09967-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The development of gene-editing technologies, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and associated Cas9 endonuclease (CRISPR/Cas9) system, coincides with a rapidly expanding knowledge of the role of genes in the human ageing process. This raises the prospect that, in addition to the treatment of genetic diseases and disorders, it may become possible to use gene-editing technologies to alter the ageing process and significantly extend the maximum human lifespan. Germline editing poses distinctive problems due to its implications for individual members of future, unborn generations. In this essay, I wish to home in, narrowly, on a single ethical objection to extending the lifespan of future generations by editing the human germline. The objection suggests that to extend lifespans is to unethically inflict the harm of loneliness on future people. I claim that the argument rests on assumptions that ought to be rejected.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11673-020-09967-w

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Belshaw, C. 2012. A new argument for anti-natalism. South African Journal of Philosophy 31(1): 117–127. · doi:10.1080/02580136.2012.10751772
  2. Benatar, D. 2006. Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. · DOI · Paper page
  3. ———. 2012. Every conceivable harm: A further defence of anti-natalism. South African Journal of Philosophy 31(1): 128–164. · doi:10.1080/02580136.2012.10751773
  4. Buss, D.M. 1985. Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist 73(1): 47–51.
  5. Callahan, D., and W. Gaylin. 2017. How long a life is enough life? Hastings Center Report 47(4): 16–18. · doi:10.1002/hast.735
  6. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
  7. Gems, D. 2003. Is more life always better? The new biology of aging and the meaning of life. The Hastings Center Report 33(4): 31–39. · DOI
  8. Harris, J. 2000. Intimations of immortality. Science 288(5463): 59. · doi:10.1126/science.288.5463.59
  9. Harrison, G. 2012. Antinatalism, asymmetry, and an ethic of prima facie duties. South African Journal of Philosophy 31(1): 94–103. · doi:10.1080/02580136.2012.10751770
  10. Hsu, P. D., E. S. Lander, and F. Zhang. 2014. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157(6): 1262–1278. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Juengst, E. T., R. H. Binstock, M. Mehlman, and S. G. Post. 2003. “Anti-aging medicine” and the challenges of human enhancement. The Hastings Center Report 33(4): 21–30. · doi:10.2307/3528377
  12. Kenyon, C. J. 2010. The genetics of ageing. Nature 464(7288): 504–512. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Murphy, T. F. 2015. The tortoise transformation as a prospect for life extension. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12(4): 645–649. · doi:10.1007/s11673-015-9645-5
  14. Normile, D. 2018. CRISPR bombshell: Chinese researcher claims to have created gene-edited twins. Science, November 26. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1839. Accessed July 02, 2019. · doi:10.1126/science.aaw1839
  15. Oeppen, J., and J. W. Vaupel. 2002. Broken limits to life expectancy. Science 296: 1029–1031. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Partridge, B., M. Underwood, J. Lucke, H. Bartlett, and W. Hall. 2009. Ethical concerns in the community about technologies to extend human life span. The American Journal of Bioethics 9(12): 68–76. · doi:10.1080/15265160903318368
  17. Robertson, I. L. 2017. Designing Methuselah: An ethical argument against germline genetic modification to prolong human longevity. Journal of Medical Ethics 43(9): 645. · DOI
  18. Singer, P. 1991. Research into aging: Should it be guided by the interests of present individuals, future individuals, or the species. In Life span extension: Consequences and open questions, edited by F. C. Ludwig, 132–145. New York: Springer.
  19. Singh, A. 2018. The hypothetical consent objection to anti-natalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21(5): 1135–1150. · doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9952-0
  20. Świeżyński, A. 2016. The loneliness of “Adam”: An attempt at symbolic interpretation. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 72(2): 285–297. · doi:10.7202/1039299ar
  21. Wareham, C. S. 2009. Deprivation and the see-saw of death. South African Journal of Philosophy 28(2): 246–256. · doi:10.4314/sajpem.v28i2.46685
  22. ———. 2012. Life extension and mental ageing. Philosophical Papers 41(3): 455–477. · DOI
  23. ———. 2015. Slowed ageing, welfare, and population problems. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 36(5): 321–340. · DOI
  24. Williams, B. 1973. Problems of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Wareham, C. S.
Venue
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-09
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
309-314
ISSN
  • 1176-7529
  • 1872-4353
DOI
10.1007/s11673-020-09967-w
Cited by
4
References
2
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genome Editing for Longer Lives: The Problem of Loneliness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11673-020-09967-w
The paper
Wareham, C. S. (2020). Genome Editing for Longer Lives: The Problem of Loneliness. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-09967-w

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.