The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gene Editing, Enhancing and Women’s Role
Abstract
A recent article on the front page of The Independent (September 18, 2015) reported that the genetic 'manipulation' of IVF embryos is to start in Britain, using a new revolutionary gene-editing technique, called Crispr/Cas9. About three weeks later (Saturday 10, October 2015), on the front page of the same newspaper, it was reported that the National Health Service (NHS) faces a one billion pound deficit only 3 months into the new year. The hidden connection between these reports is that gene editing could be used to solve issues related to health care allocation. Improving the health of future generations might coincide with public health goals; it might improve the health of individuals and communities, and, if successful, might be seen as a public good. However, enhancing future generations will require In Vitro Fertilisation and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Remarkably, the necessary involvement of women in an enhancing scenario has not been discussed by its proponents. The present discourse on moral obligations of future generations, although not referring to women, seems to imply that women might be required, morally, if not legally, to reproduce with IVF. Enhancing future generations will be gendered, unless the artificial womb is developed. These are challenging issues that require a wider perspective, of both women and men. Despite the lack of a unified feminist conclusion in the discussions about the merits and risks of human genome modification, there is an u…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“As the focus of the current debate has been on the safety of the child and its potential descendants, it has largely been ignored how i-HGE can also pose risks to the intended mother as she is the primary and first research subject exposed to the burdens of the experiments (Simonstein 2019; Farrell et al. 2019; Farrell, Malek, and Scott 2021).”
From Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic (2023) · cites this paper as Simonstein 2019
Citations
Cites
A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification
Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., Corn, J. E., Daley, G. Q., Doudna, J. A., Fenner, M., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab1028 · Cited by 733
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Ber, R. (2009). Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 21, 153–169. · DOI
- Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2013) [2009]. The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement. In J. Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 375–416). Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
- Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 242–248. · DOI
- Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Harris, J. (2013) [2009]. Enhancements are a moral obligation. In J. Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 131–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
- Hayry, M. (2010). Rationality and the genetic challenge: Making people better?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- MacKenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Introduction: Autonomy refigured. In C. MacKenzie & N. Stoljar (Eds.), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
- Overall, C. (2012). Why have children? The ethical debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · DOI
- Pilcher, J., & Whelehan, I. (2005) 50 Key concepts in gender studies, 3rd edn. London: Sage. · DOI
- Ran, F. A., Hsu, P. D., Wright, J., et al. (2013). Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nature Protocols, 8, 2281–2308. · DOI · Paper page
- Sander-Staudt, M. (2006). Of machine born? A feminist assessment of ectogenesis and artificial wombs. In Scott Gelfand & John R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction (pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: Rodopi. · DOI
- Savulescu, J. (2006). Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In Bonnie Steinbock (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on bioethics (pp. 516–535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (2013 [2009]). Human enhancement ethics: The state of the debate. In J Savulescu, N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23, 274–290. · DOI
- Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., et al. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein and Cell, 6, 476–479. · DOI
- Senior, M. (2015). UK funding agencies weigh in on human germline editing. Nature Biotechnology, 33, 1118–1119. · DOI
- Sherwin, S. (1998). A relational approach to autonomy in health care. In Susan Sherwin (Ed.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy in health care (pp. 1–28). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Simonstein, F. (2006). Artificial reproduction technologies and women as human subjects for research. Medicine and Law, 26, 8–12.
- Simonstein, F. (2008). Stem cell research—Can the disagreement be resolved? A perspective from Israel. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 732–734. · DOI
- Simonstein, F., & Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. (2009). The artificial womb: A pilot study considering people’s views on the artificial womb and ectogenesis in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare, 18, 87–94. · DOI
- Simonstein, F., Mashiach-Eizenberg, M., Revel, A., & Yunes, Y. (2014). Assisted reproduction policies in Israel: A retrospective analysis of IVF-ET. Fertility and Sterility, 102, 1301–1306. · DOI
- Solinger, R. (2005). Pregnancy and power. NY: New York University Press.
- Steinberg, D. (1997). Bodies in glass: Genetics eugenics and embryo ethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Takala, T. (2009). Human before sex? ectogenesis as a way to equality. In F. Simonstein (Ed.), Reprogen-ethics and the Future of Gender (pp. 187–196). London: Springer. · DOI
- Tong, R. (2006). Out of body gestation: In whose best interests? In Scott Gelfand & John R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction (pp. 59–76). Amsterdam: Rodopi. · DOI
- Walker, A. (2009). Commentary: The emergence and application of active aging in Europe. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 21, 75–93. · DOI
- Wang, S., Yi, F., & Qu, J. (2015). Eliminate mitochondrial diseases by gene editing in germ-line cells and embryos. Protein and Cell, 6, 472–475. · DOI
- Zimmer, Z., & McDaniel, S. A. (2013). Global ageing in the twenty-first century. In Z. Zimmer & S. McDaniel (Eds.), Ageing in the twenty-first century: Challenges, opportunities and implications (pp. 1–12). New York: Ashgate.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic
Ranisch, R., Trettenbach, K., & Arnason, G. (2023) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-022-10115-x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Simonstein, F.
- Venue
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- Published
- 2017-02-02
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1007-1016
- ISSN
- 1353-3452
- 1471-5546
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
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
