•  71
    Genome Editing Technologies and Human Germline Genetic Modification: The Hinxton Group Consensus Statement
    with Sarah Chan, Peter J. Donovan, Thomas Douglas, Christopher Gyngell, John Harris, Robin Lovell-Badge, Debra J. H. Mathews, Alan Regenberg, and On Behalf of the Hinxton Group
    American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12): 42-47. 2015.
    The prospect of using genome technologies to modify the human germline has raised profound moral disagreement but also emphasizes the need for wide-ranging discussion and a well-informed policy response. The Hinxton Group brought together scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and journal editors for an international, interdisciplinary meeting on this subject. This consensus statement formulated by the group calls for support of genome editing research and the development of a scientific roadmap f…Read more
  •  359
    Summary: Edward Lanphier and colleagues contend that human germline editing is an unethical technology because it could have unpredictable effects on future generations. In our view, such misgivings do not justify their proposed moratorium.
  •  128
    The publication of the first study to use gene editing techniques in human embryos (Liang et al., 2015) has drawn outrage from many in the scientific community. The prestigious scientific journals Nature and Science have published commentaries which call for this research to be strongly discouraged or halted all together (Lanphier et al., 2015; Baltimore et al., 2015). We believe this should be questioned. There is a moral imperative to continue this research.
  •  55
    The Ethics of Human Life Extension: The Second Argument from Evolution
    Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6): 696-713. 2015.
    One argument that is sometimes made against pursuing radical forms of human life extension is that such interventions will make the species less evolvable, which would be morally undesirable. In this article, I discuss the empirical and evaluative claims of this argument. I argue that radical increases in life expectancy could, in principle, reduce the evolutionary potential of human populations through both biological and cultural mechanisms. I further argue that if life extension did reduce th…Read more
  •  33
    Cognitive Diversity and Moral Enhancement
    with Simon Easteal
    Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (1): 66-74. 2015.
  •  22
    Valuable and Valueless Diversity
    American Journal of Bioethics 15 (6): 38-39. 2015.
  •  93
    Enhancing the Species: Genetic Engineering Technologies and Human Persistence
    Philosophy and Technology 25 (4): 495-512. 2012.
    Many of the existing ethical analyses of genetic engineering technologies (GET) focus on how they can be used to enhance individuals—to improve individual well-being, health and cognition. There is a gap in the current literature about the specific ways enhancement technologies could be used to improve our populations and species, viewed as a whole. In this paper, I explore how GET may be used to enhance the species through improvements in the gene pool. I argue one aspect of the species that ma…Read more
  •  286
    Reproductive genetic technologies allow parents to decide whether their future children will have or lack certain genetic predispositions. A popular model that has been proposed for regulating access to RGTs is the ‘genetic supermarket’. In the genetic supermarket, parents are free to make decisions about which genes to select for their children with little state interference. One possible consequence of the genetic supermarket is that collective action problems will arise: if rational individua…Read more