Gene therapy is growing in its capabilities, but there should be limits to its use.
A report released by the US National Academies of Science and Medicine underscores the potential of gene editing and acknowledges the sensitivities in managing the ethical dimensions.
It’s not always obvious where a new technology will end up.
NIH Image Gallery
A scientific breakthrough in a vacuum may be free of ethical implications. But many developments can be used for good or evil, or both. There's a fine balance on what to control and to what extent.
Blood is drawn from an unidentified patient during a routine exam Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016 at a Boston area medical clinic.
AP Photo/Dwayne Desaulniers
New regulations for research with human blood and tissue try to balance scientific progress with patient privacy.
A discipline neither good nor evil.
Saturday Evening Post/Harris A. Ewing
Maybe you think neuroscience has a peaceable history of benign efforts to improve lives and enhance human capacities. But its origins and development tell a different story – with ethical implications.
The science of reanimating the dead from deep freeze is one thing. But even if possible, it poses serious social and legal questions.
Now’s the time to think about what we’re getting into with neurotechnologies.
Brain image via www.shutterstock.com.
How will neurotech evolve? An NAS workshop this week focuses on social and ethical opportunities and challenges we face both now and down the road.
Are your colleagues using drugs to succeed at work?
Smart drugs are known to boost cognition in healthy people – but are they a form of cheating?
Growing human organs in pigs mean they’re doing our dirty work for us.
We're living longer and more ill lives – could we use animals to grow human organs for transplants?
Who owns your thoughts? And other important questions raised by technology.
Hands and brain via shutterstock.com
New and imagined digital technologies have important ethical implications. We should devise relevant social norms through a high-profile, public, collaborative process.
A patent has far-reaching implications for future research.
U.C. Berkeley and the Broad Institute are fighting to control the patents on the revolutionary gene-editing technology. But there's a lot more at stake than just who gets the credit and licensing fees.
Of one mind.
iPhone by Shutterstock
Philosophically speaking our smartphones could be seen as an extension of us. But where does that leave us legally?
A snip here, but not a snip there?
DNA image via www.shutterstock.com
The International Summit on Human Gene Editing drew a distinction between editing an individual's body cells and editing germline cells that would pass changes to future generations. Does that make sense?
Future people would be grateful if their disease is cured, rather than being replaced by a different healthier or non-disabled person.
Experts from around the world are in the US to discuss the scientific, ethical and governance issues linked to human gene editing. Here are five reasons they shouldn't ban research in the field.
The real question is not whether gene editing should be allowed or banned, but how it should be regulated.
The debate about regulating gene editing technology is often couched in polar terms, but understanding degrees of regulation that might be a better approach.
Would finding the fountain of youth really be such a great thing?
Nicola Sapiens De Mitri/Flickr
Some scientists claim a pill that would have us living healthier lives for longer is less than a generation away. But many philosophers argue extended life may not be as good as it sounds.
The more academics fear being involved in media storms, the less they feel free to explore topics they consider important.
Public engagement of academics has increased enormously in recent decades. But this new level of engagement is producing problems and conflicts for which many academics are ill-prepared.
US row might suggest using feotal tissue is new - in fact it's not only a long-held practice, but essential for many medical breakthroughs.
Results of Nazi hypothermia experiments were cited in papers from the 1950s-1980s.
On Human Experiments - The Nazi experiments during World War II were among the most egregious instances of unethical human research. But does that mean we can't use the data they generated?
In the future, our DNA could be different by design.
DNA by Seamartini Graphics/www.shutterstock.com
That genetic editing techniques have become as straightforward as they have poses questions for how we want them to be used.
Families share genes but that doesn’t mean no individual in a family should be accorded privacy about their genetic tests.
When a family member dies from a disease caused by a genetic mutation, doctors have to decide whether to share the deceased person's test results with the rest of the family.