Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:19:44.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin Carry Us Past Current Contentious Discussions of Gene Editing Technologies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

MÁRIA ŠULEKOVÁ  and
KEVIN T. FITZGERALD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 technology has increased attention, and contention, regarding the use and regulation of genome editing technologies. Public discussions continue to give evidence of this debate falling back into the previous polarized positions of technological enthusiasts versus those who are more cautious in their approach. One response to this contentious relapse could be to view this promising and problematic new technology from a radically different perspective that embraces both the excitement of this technological advance and the prudence necessary to use it well. The thought of Teilhard de Chardin provides this desired perspective, and some insights that may help carry forward public discussions to achieve widely accepted uses and regulations.

Keywords

CRISPR-Cas9gene editinggenetic engineeringethicsPierre Teilhard de Chardinevolutionresponsibilitybiosphere stabilitygenetic diversitycommon goodtranshumanism
Type
Special Section: Genome Editing: Biomedical and Ethical Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 62 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research done by Mária Šuleková, PhD, at Georgetown University was supported by the Fulbright Scholar Program.

References

Notes

1. Smalley, E. As CRISPR–Cas adoption soars, summit calls for genome editing oversight. Nature Biotechnology 2018;36(6):486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Jasanoff, S, Hurlbut, JB. A global observatory for gene editing. Nature 2018;555(7697):435–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. See note 2, Jasanoff, Hurlbut 2018:435–7.

4. Burton B, Dunn CP. Ethics of care. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc; 2017 Jun 19; available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-of-care (last accessed 26 Jul 2018).

5. For more about relationality and dependency in ethics of care, see also Šuleková M. Vzťahovosť, závislosť a cnosť v etike starostlivosti. In: Rajský A, Wiesenganger M, eds. Pomoc druhému na ceste cnosti. Trnava, Slovak Republic: Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis; 2018:124–151.

6. National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. NSGC Code of Ethics. Adopted 1/92, revised 12/04, 1/06, 4/17; available at https://www.nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=12 (last accessed 26 Jul 2018).

7. See note 2, Jasanoff, Hurlbut 2018:435–7.

8. Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; 1997; available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/164 (last accessed 26 Jul 2018).

9. On Human Gene Editing: International Summit Statement; 2015; available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a (last accessed 26 Jul 2018).

10. Sykora, P, Caplan, A. The Council of Europe should not reaffirm the ban on germline genome editing in humans. EMBO Reports 2017;18(11):1871–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Harris, J. Germline manipulation and our future. The American Journal of Bioethics 2015;15(2):30–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Savulescu, J, Pugh, J, Douglas, T, Gyngell, C. The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & Cell 2015;6(7):476–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 2015;519(7544):410–1.

14. Nordberg A, Minssen T, Holm S, Horst M, Mortensen K, Lindberg Moller B. Cutting edges and weaving threads in the gene editing (ᴙ)evolution: reconciling scientific progress with legal, ethical, and social concerns. Journal of Law and Biosciences 2018;5(1):35–83.

15. Fukuyama, F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biology Revolution . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2002.Google Scholar

16. Habermas, J. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.Google Scholar

17. Parens, E. Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar

18. See note 17, Parens 2015.

19. See note 17, Parens 2015.

20. Grau JA. Morality and the Human Future in the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin. New Jersey-London: Associated University Presses, Inc.; 1976.

21. Gibellini R. Teilhard de Chardin: L’opera e le interpretazioni. Brescia, Italy: Editrice Queriniana; 1981.

22. Galleni L. Teilhard de Chardin and the Latin school of evolution: Complexity, moving towards and equilibriums of nature. Pensamiento 2011;67(254):689–708.

23. Teilhard de Chardin 1971 qtd. in Galleni L, Scalfari F. Teilhard de Chardin’s engagement with the relationship between science and theology in the light of discussions about environmental ethics. In: Deane-Drummond C, ed. Pierre Teilhard De Chardin on People and Planet. London: Equinox; 2006:196–214.

24. Teilhard de Chardin 1971 qtd. in See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

25. See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

26. King, U. Feeding the zest for life: Spiritual energy resources for the future of humanity. In: Meynard, T, ed. Teilhard and the Future of Humanity. New York: Fordham University Press; 2006:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

28. Teilhard de Chardin 1964 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

29. See note 22, Galleni 2011:689–708.

30. Teilhard de Chardin 1969 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

31. Teilhard de Chardin 1969 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

32. Čartolovni, A. Teilhard de Chardin’s oeuvre within an ongoing discussion of a gene drive release for public health reasons. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017;13(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. See note 20, Grau 1976.

34. Jeličić A. Intelektualna i duhovna baština Pierrea Teilharda de Chardina iz perspektive suvremenih bioetičkih problema. Filozofska istraživanja 2015;35(2):289–300.

35. See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

36. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

37. Teilhard de Chardin P. The Phenomenon of Man, 5th ed. London-Glasgow: Collins Clear-Type Press; 1974.

38. Grumett 2005 qtd. in Ayotte, DJ. An introduction to the thought of Teilhard de Chardin as a catalyst for interreligious dialogue. Religious Inquiries 2012;1(2):65–82.Google Scholar

39. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

40. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

41. See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

42. See note 20, Grau 1976.

43. Teilhard de Chardin 1964 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

44. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

45. Teilhard de Chardin 1999 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

46. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

47. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

48. Teilhard de Chardin 1962 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

49. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

50. Teilhard de Chardin 1962 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

51. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

52. Teilhard de Chardin 1970 qtd. in See note 20, Grau 1976.

53. Ligneul A. Teilhard and Personalism. New York: Paulist Press Deus Books; 1968.

54. See note 20, Grau 1976.

55. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

56. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

57. See note 20, Grau 1976.

58. Teilhard de Chardin 1962 qtd. in See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

59. See note 26, King 2006:3–19.

60. See note 20, Grau 1976.

61. Jeličić 2015 qtd. in See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

62. Galleni 2016 qtd. in See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

63. See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

64. See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

65. See note 32, Čartolovni 2017:1–18.

66. See note 38, Ayotte 2012:65–82.

67. Steinhart E. Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism. Journal of Evolution and Technology 2008;20(1):1–22

68. See note 67, Steinhart 2008:1–22.

69. Delio, I. Transhumanism or ultrahumanism: Teilhard de Chardin on technology, religion and evolution. Theology and Science 2012;10(2):153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. See note 69, Delio 2012:153–66.

71. See note 69, Delio 2012:153–66.

72. See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

73. Lovelock 1998 qtd. in See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

74. See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

75. About communitarian prospective in genetic research see also Šuleková M. Le biobanche di ricerca: Problematiche etico-sociali tra diritti dell´individuo e prospettiva comunitaria. Medicina e Morale 2013;3:477–510.

76. See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

77. Teilhard de Chardin 1973 qtd. in See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

78. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1948; available at http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (last accessed 26 Jul 2018).

79. See note 23, Galleni, Scalfari 2006:196–214.

80. Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press; 1984.Google Scholar

81. Lovelock 1991 qtd. in Galleni L. Is Biosphere doing theology? Zygon 2001;1:33–7.