Toward Public Bioethics?

1Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This issue of the Hastings Center Report (May-June 2017) features a couple of interesting takes on the governance challenges of emerging technologies. In an essay on the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report published this February on human germ-line gene editing, Eric Juengst, a philosopher at the University of North Carolina, argues that the NASEM committee did not manage to rethink the rules. Juengst reaches what he calls an "eccentric conclusion": "The committee's 2017 consensus report has been widely interpreted as 'opening the door' to inheritable human genetic modification and holding a line against enhancement interventions. But on a close reading it does neither." In the column Policy and Politics, Sarah Chan, a chancellor's fellow at the University of Edinburgh, discusses the emerging science of "organoids," "embryoids," and "synthetic human entities with embryo-like features" and calls for a sustained effort to rethink the rules for embryo research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaebnick, G. E. (2017, May 1). Toward Public Bioethics? The Hastings Center Report. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.696

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free