Although genetic engineering cannot be considered a new technology, CRISPR has taken it to a whole new level. The quickness and precision of this new biotechnology, as well as its wide range of applications, make CRISPR nothing less than a revolution. 1 The history is by now well known: the work of F. Mojica on the immune system of archaea and bacteria in the 1990s served as the basis of the development by J. Doudna and E. Charpentier in 2012, and shortly after by F. Zhang, of a gene-editing technology that emulated the bacterial immune system's ability to cut DNA with high precision. Since then, this technology has been successfully applied to all kinds of organisms, including mammals, and has been perfected and amplified not only to cut, but also to add genes. More recently, 'prime editing', developed in 2019 by David Liu and his colleagues at the Broad Institute (Cambridge, Massachusetts), seems to have reduced significantly the shortcomings of CRISPR, namely its precision, by making it 'possible to insert or delete specific sequences at genome targets with less collateral damage'. 2 Doudna and Charpentier won the Nobel Prize in 2020 for their work on CRISPR. Gene editing of humans has been controversial since the introduction of this technology. However, many have been surprised by how fast its implementation has been. In 2015, J. Huang and his Chinese team reported that they had edited human zygotes. Two years after, in 2017, K. Niakan's group in the U.K. was able to genetically modify human blastocysts. But it was in the last months of 2018 that Chinese researcher He Jiankui shocked the world when he claimed to have helped in the birth of the first genetically modified human babies, Lulu and Nana, with a third pregnancy underway. He Jiankui's experiment recruited HIV-serodiscordant couples: couples in which the man is HIV-infected, while the woman is not.The couples were informed that this procedure might make their children immune to HIV, and had their fertility treatment and pregnancy medical care paid for by the researchers. During IVF, the

This article attempts to answer the question of whether robots can have personal identity. In recent years, and due to the numerous and rapid technological advances, the discussion around the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Agents or simply Robots, has gained great importance. However, this reflection has almost always focused on problems such as the moral status of these robots, their rights, their capabilities or the qualities that these robots should have to support such status or rights. In this paper I want to address a question that has been much less analyzed but which I consider crucial to this discussion on robot ethics: the possibility, or not, that robots have or will one day have personal identity. The importance of this question has to do with the role we normally assign to personal identity as central to morality. After posing the problem and exposing this relationship between identity and morality, I will engage in a discussion with the recent literature on personal identity by showing in what sense one could speak of personal identity in beings such as robots. This is followed by a discussion of some key texts in robot ethics that have touched on this problem, finally addressing some implications and possible objections. I finally give the tentative answer that robots could potentially have personal identity, given other cases and what we empirically know about robots and their foreseeable future.

El presente artículo trata de exponer las relaciones que Ortega y Gasset establece entre proyecto de vida y técnica. La articulación entre estas dos instancias, decisiva para la comprensión de la metafísica de la vida humana del filósofo español, se revelará como un tema complicado y cambiante dentro de la producción orteguiana.