Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement

Greene, Marsha; Master, Zubin

doi:10.1007/s11673-018-9865-6

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not surprising given the heated ethical and social debate regarding germline gene editing and embryos. 16–18 Indeed, recent studies on the public perception of gene editing show less public support for germline gene editing, especially for human enhancement. 19 It should also be emphasized that numerous articles could be characterized as being overly optimistic, indicating the presence of inappropriate science hype.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CRISPR in the North American popular press

Marcon

Master

Ravitsky

et al. 2019

Genetics in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeCRISPR is often called one of the century’s most important discoveries and is commonly discussed in terms of its momentous potential impacts. This study analyzed how CRISPR is discussed in the North American popular press, including how it is defined, and which benefits and risks/concerns are attributed to the technology.MethodsUsing the Factiva database, we identified 228 relevant, nonduplicated articles containing either “CRISPR” or “C.R.I.S.P.R.,” published in popular US and Canadian news sources between 1 January 2012 and 12 July 2017. Content analysis was performed on the articles.ResultsCRISPR is most often discussed in the context of human health (83.8%), compared with animals (26.3%) and plants (20.6%). Nearly all articles (96.1%) presented CRISPR’s potential benefits; 61.4% of articles presented CRISPR-related risks/concerns, the vast majority of which focused on the uncertainty surrounding CRISPR, specifically with respect to germline modifications.ConclusionsOverall, the discourse suggests a strong promotion of CRISPR, but an element of caution is also evident. Technical as well as ethical, legal, and social risks/concerns play a prominent role. This media portrayal of CRISPR might help facilitate more sophisticated and balanced policy responses, where the scientific potential of the technology is highlighted alongside broader social considerations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CRISPR in the North American popular press

Marcon

Master

Ravitsky

et al. 2019

Genetics in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies are commonly focused on increasing the tolerance of soldiers against biological or chemical warfare. This technology has the potential to influence human performance optimization (Greene and Master, 2018). Studies are usually concentrated on discovering different genes that can be harnessed from other species (Gracheva et al, 2010) and identifying new genes that can be associated with posttraumatic stress disorder, which is frequently experienced by soldiers (Cornelis et al, 2010).…”

Section: Military Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another interesting study showed that the CMG2 gene, known to cause low sensitivity to anthrax toxin when expressed in small amounts, could be silenced by this technology (Arévalo et al, 2014). However, it should be noted that far more research needs to be conducted for using CRISPR technology in humans as a defense tool against biological and chemical weapons (Greene and Master, 2018).…”

Section: Military Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology

Ayanoğlu¹,

Elçin²,

Elçin³

2020

Turk J Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biology and function of CRISPR-Cas9 technologyGenome editing technologies often work by creating fractures in chromosomal DNA. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR-Cas9 are all based solely on nucleases (Kim and Kim, 2014;Roh et al., 2018). The strength of these technologies stems from the ability to create fractures in the desired region of a specific target sequence as determined by the researcher. This allows researchers to modify the genome in practice in any region (Memi et al., 2018).The creation of changes in the genome depends mainly on the DNA repair capacity of the cells (Lau et al., 2018). All cells have two basic mechanisms for the repair of doubleAbstract: Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science. Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technology particularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost. It has made a quick introduction in fields related to humans, animals, and the environment, while raising difficult questions, applications, concerns, and bioethical issues to be discussed. Most concerns stem from the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically alter human germline cells and embryos (called germline genome editing). Germline genome editing leads to serial bioethical issues, such as the occurrence of undesirable changes in the genome, from whom and how informed consent is obtained, and the breeding of the human species (eugenics). However, the bioethical issues that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could cause in the environment, agriculture and livestock should also not be forgotten. In order for CRISPR-Cas9 to be used safely in all areas and to solve potential issues, worldwide legislation should be prepared, taking into account the opinions of both life and social scientists, policy makers, and all other stakeholders of the sectors, and CRISPR-Cas9 applications should be implemented according to such legislations. However, these controls should not restrict scientific freedom. Here, various applications of CRISPR-Cas9 technology, especially in medicine and agriculture, are described and ethical issues related to genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9 technology are discussed. The social and bioethical concerns in relation to human beings, other organisms, and the environment are addressed.

show abstract

“…But it is more a case of horses for courses. There are a group of papers that address classical medical ethical issues such as professional responsibility and the duty to refer in cases of conscientious objection (Greenblum and Kasperbauer 2018), decision-making processes for dealing with possible return of genomic findings (Eckstein and Otlowski 2018), moral schism as a model for understanding parental experiences in neonatal ICU (Foe, Hellmann, and Greenberg 2018), debates about research participation, the therapeutic misconception, and human enhancement in the context of CRISPR technologies for military enhancement (Greene and Master 2018), and decisionmaking regarding apnoea testing for brain death (Lewis and Greer 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common to a number of articles across both of these sets is discussion of the ethical complexities that arise when common dualisms begin to blur and bleed. This includes blurring of the personal and professional in the context of conscientious objection and the duty to refer (Greenblum and Kasperbauer 2018), between health and the market in relation to commodification of objects such as blood, gametes, and organs (Koplin 2018), between the research and clinical domains in the return of genomic findings (Eckstein and Otlowski 2018), and between health and enhancement when using CRISPR technologies in a military setting (Greene and Master 2018). Each of these articles reminds us of the need for critical reflection on taken-for-granted binaries that often underpin our ethical reasoning and it is here that an Bopening up to scrutiny^from those outside the specialized niche can provide great insight.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%